|
Global Warming Myth
Global-warming myth
May 16, 2008 Washington Times On May Day, Noah Keenlyside of Germany's Leipzig Institute of Marine Science, published a paper in NATURE forecasting no additional global warming "over the next decade." Al Gore and his minions continue to chant that "the science is settled" on global warming, but the only thing settled is that there has not been any since 1998. Critics of this view (rightfully) argue that 1998 was the warmest year in modern record, due to a huge El Nino event in the Pacific Ocean, and that it is unfair to start any analysis at a high (or a low) point in a longer history. But starting in 2001 or 1998 yields the same result: no warming. The Keenlyside team found that natural variability in the Earth's oceans will "temporarily offset" global warming from carbon dioxide. Seventy percent of the Earth's surface is oceanic; hence, what happens there greatly influences global temperature. It is now known that both Atlantic and Pacific temperatures can get "stuck," for a decade or longer, in relatively warm or cool patterns. The North Atlantic is now forecast to be in a cold stage for a decade, which will help put the damper on global warming. Another Pacific temperature pattern is forecast not to push warming, either. Science no longer provides justification for any rush to pass drastic global warming legislation... more here: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-warming-myth/ |
Global Waming Myth?
The end is not near, instead of panicking, adjust ABC NEWS John Stossel http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Story?id=3061015&page=1 |
When I am FREEZING in below-normal temperatures for November, I find it really difficult to lend any credence to global warming.........:rolleyes:
|
No no no...now it's no longer "Global Warming": they've realized how stupid it looks, so to try to regain some of their lost credibility outside of the world of scientific ignoramuses, they've renamed it "Climate Change." This way they can blame it on you no matter what the weather does.
Retards. |
Personally I think this movement will bring more impact to our nation and our lives at every level than almost any other. And I'm not talking about the concept of "climate change," I'm talking about the movement that is using this nonsense to force their agenda on us at every turn.
A few items from my archives... Many around us have bought in to the "green revolution," but do you think it's possible that the Global Warming Movement has nothing to do with the environment, that it's just a smokescreen for socialists who want to destroy and then restructure our economy with "carbon credit taxation?" Many Americans believe new mantra of socialism in the U.S. is "CLIMATE CHANGE," here are a few articles... Global Warming has its roots in Socialism Don't forget Claude Allegre is one of France's most prominent SOCIALISTS, and he pretty much started the Global Warming Movement---although he has recently changed his own views, you can read that here: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/sto...5-fc28f14da388 Environmental Alarmists have a bad track record This is really funny: for more of the insanity promoted by the alarmist "Earth Day" crowd,* take a look here at the smart comments by Walter E. Williams, Ph.D.: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=63542 Dr. Roger Revelle Gore's Mentor and*Harvard professor, Dr. Roger Revelle wrote the following before he died, 'The scientific base for a greenhouse warming is too uncertain to justify drastic action at this time,' http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/...new_world.html The Petition Project Over 30,000 scientists have signed a petition to debunk the Global Warming Myth of climate change... Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.*It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science – including 9,021 PhDs, are not "a few." Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”*These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth... http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdat..._Petition.html Have you read the writings of Alan Caruba, just to hear another side of the story---see here: http://www.michnews.com/artman/publi...le_20044.shtml http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4144 http://autarchic.tripod.com/files/earthday.html Weather Channel Founder says sue Al Gore for Fraud: By now most people are aware that the founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, said global warming is "the greatest scam in history" last November.*On Monday, while speaking at the*2008 International Conference on Climate Changebeing held in New York City, Coleman took his criticisms further by advocating that all those involved in the sale and marketing of carbon credits, including Al Gore, should be sued "to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming.” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-warming-fraud http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...s_al_gore.html Newsweek Acknowledges Cracks in Global Warming Hoax You know the global warming hoax is running out of gas when even knee-jerk liberal Newsweek admits that not everyone is on board with the hysterical "consensus." The April 16 issue includes a surprisingly sane editorial by MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen. http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...ek_acknow.html Radical socialist greens are out to damage industry and restructure the world economy... it really has very little to do with the the environment. Just a few weeks ago the liberals in Congress were trying to pass a mammoth taxation bill designed to force corporations to buy "credits" in order to operate on American soil. Senate leader Mitch McConnell said the proposed system of allowing widespread trading of carbon emissions allowances would produce "the largest restructuring of the American economy since the New Deal." Thankfully it was blocked... for now... http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/...te.climate.ap/ |
Quote:
|
First the green radicals went after our car emissions.
Now they are going after YOUR EMISSIONS, including children... :cool: The caps in the excerpt below are mine for emphasis... Global Warming Alarmists Propose Limiting Population... In a statistical study entitled “Reproduction and the Carbon Legacies of Individuals,” published in Global Environmental Change by Murtaugh and Shlax of Oregon State University, and again published here , the authors propose that the potential savings from reduced reproduction rates among humans are some 20 times more effective than the savings wrought by life style changes. It is clear that the authors follow the Liberal mantra of the ends justify the means. If we can reduce carbon emissions by reducing the number of children, then we should do it, they gloat. It appears that carbon reductions trump even “life” itself. They summarize: "Much attention has been paid to the ways that people’s home energy use, travel, food choices and other routine activities affect their EMISSIONS of carbon dioxide and, ultimately, their contributions to global warming. However, the reproductive choices of an individual are rarely incorporated into calculations of his personal impact on the environment. Here we estimate the extra EMISSIONS of fossil carbon dioxide that an average individual causes when he or she chooses to have children. The summed EMISSIONS of a person’s descendants, weighted by their relatedness to him, may far exceed the LIFETIME EMISSIONS produced by the original parent. Under current conditions in the United States, for example, each child adds about 9441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average female, which is 5.7 times her LIFETIME EMISSIONS. A person’s reproductive choices must be considered along with his day-to-day activities when assessing his ultimate impact on the global environment." MORE HERE: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/...sts_propo.html |
Bro. Parrish, I like your articles, we have a lot of subjects in common. :)
Yeah, Global Warming is a myth. Money is behind this lie somewhere, it always is. The truth is, the Sun has been radiating less heat since 1998, and there has also been a dearth of sunspots. The world is getting colder, not hotter. Look at this article dated 01/30/09 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...etting-colder/ Here's an article about sunspot activiity http://www.smm.org/buzz/blog/where-h...-sunspots-gone And MC1171611 is correct, the media has now started to say "climate change" and dropped global warming. Apparently they must have looked into the matter and found out Al Gore was wrong. |
CLIMATE CHANGE,
ahh yes, and where have we heard that word CHANGE before... (?) The nice thing about a term like "CLIMATE CHANGE," is you can keep perpetrating things like your socialist cap-and-trade global tax scam and your carbon credit tax system on the international community no matter what the weather is doing. Once you get entire governments and the population to accept the absurd notion that we can somehow PREVENT THE CLIMATE FROM EVER CHANGING, you can keep the lie rolling a long as you want. Of course, this is all nonsense and any honest meteorologist will tell you the climate is naturally in a CONSTANT STATE OF CHANGE. :rolleyes: As for GLOBAL WARMING, well we know who the source of that is, see photo below: http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2...gore_flame.jpg |
Bro. Parrish
Yes, global warming is a hoax perpetrated by socialists. The idea is that industry and a free market cannot be trusted and will exploit, ravage, and poison the planet. But if wonderful government can take over, the ruling elite will make sure Earth is safe forever. I have known since I was a boy that the polar ice caps on Mars shrink and grow again, there aren't any SUVs up there. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...Marsicecap.jpg I don't believe man could destroy the Earth if he tried. We have God's promise that He is in control and will keep us until the end. Gen 8:21 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. 22 While the earth remaineth, seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat, and summer and winter, and day and night shall not cease. Apparently Al Gore does not know these verses. |
it is said that the whole solar system is on a warming cycle. as winman has shown in the mars mapping. it was recently discovered that the devices used to determined south pole ice cap reduction was floating away from is supposed permanent location. it showed the ice reduction as a grossly over estimated amount they had a 25% loss in one year and for the last few years they would of had not ice at all. they knew those calculation were wrong so they artificially lowered them to fit a more normal scale of reduction. then they found out their sensor was lost they found it 790 nautical mile up the South American coast from where it was originally.
all their projections were and are a pack of lies |
Good info but I'm surprised nobodies mentioned "the great global warming swindle". A full length rebuttal of sorts of Al Gore's an inconvenient truth.
great global warming swindle - you can also find it split into numerous parts on youtube |
Yeah, as I read through this thread, I kept thinking about that video - I saw it years ago, along with other stuff, and never bought that lie.
Its a good video, and the Mars polar ice caps are a dead giveaway. Yet my city is filled with green religion and hippies thinking they're gonna change the world, yet they don't realize the world is changing THEM. The whole thing isn't just about money, that's only a sideline, the main reasons for it are: control trust in the government to protect taxation global unity population control (reduction) fear pagan earth worship |
Quote:
|
The radical greens and your family budget... :cool:
http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2...de-budget1.jpg What Will You Give Up to Fight "Global Warming?" "The current recession is causing Americans to take a second look at their household budget. Well, if Congress enacts cap and trade legislation, recently proposed by Chairman Henry Waxman (D-CA) of the Energy and Commerce Committee and Chairman Edward Markey (D-MA) of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, families will have to take an even harder look at their budget and be forced to make additional cuts. As recently acknowledged by a top White House official, a global warming tax could generate as much as $1.9 trillion in tax revenue over eight years, which amounts to a nearly $2,000 tax every year for every American household.* For comparison, the chart below indicates how much typical household expenditures cost families. Even if you’re fortunate enough to handle an additional $2,000 per year tax, think of all the low income families that must seriously consider eliminating one of these payments from their budgets. Sure, there’s discussion of rebate checks from “climate revenue” generation, but will they offset the costs of higher energy prices? Unlikely. * The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) calculations confirmed this. CDA took the CO2 allowance limits from the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill, which was more lax than the Waxman-Markey bill. CDA then multiplied the CO2 allowance for each year times our estimates for the allowance price for each year. The summation of these products for 8 years (2012-2019), divided by eight to get the average per year and divided that by the number of households (about 110-120 million households) gave us an average per household tax per year of nearly $2,000." http://blog.heritage.org/2009/04/01/...lobal-warming/ |
Meanwhile, I guess carbon emission concerns are just for the little people---someone is flying in a chef over 800 miles just to make pizza at the White House:
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/04/09...ly-restaurant/ http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...ake-pizza.html |
Yep, and here is an old article showing Al Gore's home, it was shown he uses 20 times more energy than the average household in the U.S.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/feb/28/film.usa2 I always get a kick out of the tree huggers. They want everything to go back to natural. Hey, let your lawn grow long, that is natural. Never comb your hair, then you would look natural (or wear clothes for that matter). Here in Connecticut we have several casinos owned by American Indian tribes on land given back to them. What?? You would have thought they would have went back to nature. They could have stocked all the streams and lakes and fished, maybe even got some buffalo and started hunting them on horseback. You know, back to nature. But the American Indians are not stupid. Living in a modern home is a lot better than a teepee, especially in New England in the winter. And driving a car to the grocery store is a lot safer than hunting a dangerous buffalo on horseback. We should put all the tree huggers on an island and let them live naturally. :) |
Quote:
The whole tree huggin,eco-warrior, whacko enviromentalist communities are going to cost the average American plenty. Cap and trade is a Bad idea. I guess Obama has bought into there enviromentalism baloney. New age,Age of aquarius and enviromentalism all have ties to one another. There are even Green Game shows and a Green channel on Satelite. |
Quote:
Revelation 16:8-9 And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory. |
EPA calls for new regs on greenhouse
'Be prepared for the taxes/penalties' The Environmental Protection Agency today pushed "the start button on a process that if allowed to run its full course, will impose economy-chilling regulations on the whole United States." USA TODAY noted the regulation would have broad economic and social impact and demand new emissions limits for vehicles as well as emission limits for virtually any sizeable building. "What it means is if someone wanted to build such a building … you have to get a permit from the EPA. You have to go through the long and tortuous process of figuring out what is the best available control technology for your source, then bring your facility into compliance," Lewis said. "On average a permit costs $125,000 … just to do the paperwork. That doesn't include technology," he said. Lewis said what it means is that every business could be hit, from stadiums and car dealerships to convention halls and shopping malls. Their additional costs, of course, would be passed on to consumers. more here: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.p...w&pageId=95321 |
Unbelieveable. That will almost stop all new small businesses. Only the large, super-rich corporations will be able to afford this. And you know, I really think that is the plan.
I used to go on YouTube and watch the conspiracy videos. At first you think they are extreme wackos. But perhaps they are right. Listen to what Dick Morris said on the Sean Hannity show concerning all these regulations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW5Jv-TRXh0 Say what you will about Dick Morris, he is very savvy and knows what's going on in the world. |
Yeah Dick Morris is always two steps ahead of the media...
Americans are getting what they voted for, a socialist in the White House... and this is only the beginning! :cool: |
Folks, while the world was distracted over Michael Jackson,
our economy may have just been officially flushed down the toilet... this is going to impact the bottom line for every American business and family budget on this forum for many, many years... http://i92.photobucket.com/albums/l2...osi_reid-1.jpg Betrayed by Congress with the Cap-and-Trade Bill Saturday, June 27, 2009 By Alan Caruba Mark it on your calendar, June 26, 2009 was the date that the House of Representatives betrayed every American in the name of saving the nation and the Earth from global warming. It was the day that 219 Representative voted for the obscenely misnamed "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" Only eight Republican members of the House voted for it and 44 Democrats voted against it. The bill, some 1,200 pages, was NOT READ by those men and women voting on it because they were NOT PERMITTED the time to do or have their staffs do it. The co-author of the bill, Rep. Henry Waxman, admitted that even he did not know its full contents. The vote was not based on science, on economics, or simple common sense. It was an exercise in raw political power exercised by the Speaker of the House and her minions. The bill puts limits on the generation of "greenhouse gases", primarily carbon dioxide, setting up an elaborate scheme for the sale and trade of so-called carbon credits that will ultimately be the equivalent of the bundled housing mortgage securities that produced the present threat to the nation's financial system. It is a get-rich scheme that will benefit a few while penalizing every American with higher costs for electricity. The limits are justified by the claim that the Earth is dramatically warming due to too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The Earth has been cooling for the last ten years and is predicted to continue cooling for thirty years or more. Carbon dioxide plays no role in the warming or cooling of the Earth. The bill is a direct attack on the nation's coal industry. Fifty percent of all the electricity generated nationwide comes from coal-fired plants. The U.S. has deposits of coal sufficient to meet the nation's needs for hundreds of years. It is cheap and it is abundant. No new coal-fired plants will be built in America in the foreseeable future. Coal that is not utilized here will be exported to China, a nation that is building new coal-fired plants and opening them on a weekly basis to meet its need for power. The bill also allocates billions for the development of the two worst, most inefficient and unpredictable sources of electricity, wind and solar energy. Presently, these represent barely one percent of all the electricity generated in the nation. There is no way, nor should they be, they can replace coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy as a source of electricity. They are also the alleged source of "green" jobs. As for "security", a nation that cannot access its own sources of energy, coal, oil and natural gas, has no security if it must import them from other nations, some of whom are hostile to our values and system of government. The bill puts our fate in the hands of nations that support the goals of Islamic global domination. It puts the nation at the mercy of men like Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and explains why President Obama made a deep bow to a Saudi prince earlier this year. The bill must now go to the Senate where it is hoped that the upper body, though controlled by Democrats, will ensure it does not move on to the desk of the President. If it passes in the Senate, the beginning of the actual decline of America as a great economy will be dated June 26, 2009. Without abundant power, electricity for our homes, offices and factories; without gasoline for our cars and trucks, America will become a failed nation. http://www.expertclick.com/NewsRelea...200927560.aspx |
June 26, 2009
The Economic Impact of the Waxman-Markey Cap-and-Trade Bill Testimony before the Senate Republican Conference June 22, 2009 My name is Ben Lieberman, and I am the Senior Policy Analyst for Energy and Environment in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. The views I express in this testimony are my own, and should not be construed as representing any official position of The Heritage Foundation. I would like to thank the Senate Republican Conference for extending me the privilege of participating in today's hearing. I'll be discussing the costs of the cap-and-trade approach to addressing global warming and The Heritage Foundation's economic analysis of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (Waxman-Markey). As you know, the House is currently considering this bill, which is similar to but has more stringent targets and timetables than the Lieberman-Warner cap-and-trade bill that was rejected by the Senate last June. It is clear that cap-and-trade is very expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. After all, when you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and trade operates--and make no mistake, this is the most convoluted attempt at economic central planning this nation has ever attempted--the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are forced to use less of it. Inflicting economic pain is what this is all about. That is how the ever-tightening emissions targets will be met. The only entities directly regulated by Waxman-Markey would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers, and some manufacturers that produce energy on site. So, the good news for the rest of us--homeowners, car owners, small-business owners, farmers--is that we won't be directly regulated under this bill. The bad news is that nearly all the costs will get passed on to us anyway. What are those costs? According to the analysis we conducted at The Heritage Foundation, which is attached to my written statement, the higher energy costs kick in as soon as the bill's provisions take effect in 2012. For a household of four, energy costs go up $436 that year, and they eventually reach $1,241 in 2035 and average $829 annually over that span. Electricity costs go up 90 percent by 2035, gasoline by 58 percent, and natural gas by 55 percent by 2035. The cumulative higher energy costs for a family of four by then will be nearly $20,000. But direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. Nearly everything goes up, since higher energy costs raise production costs. If you look at the total cost of Waxman-Markey, it works out to an average of $2,979 annually from 2012-2035 for a household of four. By 2035 alone, the total cost is over $4,600. Beyond the cost impact on individuals and households, Waxman-Markey also affects employment, and especially employment in the manufacturing sector. We estimate job losses averaging 1,145,000 at any given time from 2012-2035. And note that those are net job losses, after the much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. Some of the lost jobs will be destroyed entirely, while others will be outsourced to nations like China and India that have repeatedly stated that they'll never hamper their own economic growth with energy-cost boosting global warming measures like Waxman-Markey. Since farming is energy intensive, that sector will be particularly hard-hit. Higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, higher electricity costs, and higher natural gas-derived fertilizer costs all erode farm profits, which are expected to drop by 28 percent in 2012 and average 57 percent lower through 2035. As with American manufacturers, Waxman-Markey also puts American farmers at a global disadvantage, as other food-exporting nations would have no comparable energy-price raising measures in place. Overall, Waxman-Markey reduces gross domestic product by an average of $393 billion annually between 2012 and 2035, and cumulatively by $9.4 trillion. In other words, the nation will be $9.4 trillion poorer with Waxman-Markey than without it. http://www.heritage.org/Research/Ene...tst062609a.cfm |
In the 1970's, I remember when they were predicting a new "Ice Age" was coming upon us. I remember how scared people were. And how they were all talking about "that's how the dinosaurs died..." and I was imagining freezing to death, in a very unpleasant (and painful!) manner. I guess now it's the opposite. Today I'm not so gullible as I was back then. It wasn't true then and it isn't true now.
Scare tactics have always been a very effective method of bringing the masses into a new line of thinking that benefits certain categories of people. Scientists love the grant money and so they'll doctor data or misrepresent the data by either alluding to something that is not supported by the data, or conveniently leaving out part of the data, while focusing on one minor point and making it all-important. Our earth goes through cycles of warm and cold over centuries. It's certainly not feeling any WARMER in the winters of Wisconsin!! We've had some record snowfalls the last couple of years, including a major blizzard last year. I remember reading, about a year ago, an article that showed that there is ANOTHER side to this global-warming issue. If you want to get grant money, you'll toe the line and give the public what they want them to hear. The article referenced some type of professional letter that had been signed by MANY prominent scientists, debunking the myth of global warming and telling people that the media only prints what they want us to see. Brother Forrest, next winter, send some WARMTH to Wisconsin. 40 or 50 feels downright balmy in a Wisconsin winter!! Jassy |
Quote:
OOPS, looks like my original link was broken, here you go: http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php http://www.petitionproject.org/purpose_of_petition.php http://www.petitionproject.org/quali...of_signers.php |
Quote:
Jassy |
Quote:
Jen |
Quote:
Jassy |
Liberal Senator BUSTED on Climate Change nonsense...
July 08, 2009 Imagining a crisis Senator Tom Udall (D-NM) at yesterday's Environment and Public Works Committee hearing, as he cited the Global Climate Change Impacts in the U.S./SW region report: "...Human induced climate change appears to be well underway in the southwest. Recent warming in the Southwest has been among the most rapid in the nation. This is driving declines in spring snowpack and Colorado River flow.... According to climate scientists, if we fail to reduce global warming, vast area of the United States will likely face severe water shortages...." Prompted by memories of my sister describing massive rain accumulation in the Carlsbad NM area a few years ago, I went a-digging.... http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/..._a_crisis.html |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:43 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Website © AV1611.Com.
Posts represent only the opinions of users of this forum and do not necessarily represent the opinions of the webmaster.
