Global Warming Swindle

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2shelbys
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeWM said:
I gotta say I didn’t realise ‘ozone hole deniers’ still existed, but after a quick search of the web I seem to have found a few. A small number, though.

This has confirmed something else to me though. No matter how much scientific evidence we get for climate change, there are going to be some people who are just going to refuse to believe it, point blank. We’re just going to have to go ahead and do what we need to do to fix it without your support, I guess.

Mike
Click to expand...
There ya go again.😉

The Hole in the Ozone has pretty much always been there, and it grows larger and smaller from time to time. And it’s no reason for us to jump through our apex.
 
vern_humphrey said:
There ya go again.😉

The Hole in the Ozone has pretty much always been there, and it grows larger and smaller from time to time. And it’s no reason for us to jump through our apex.
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct.

The seasonal “ozone thinning” at the South Pole was discovered by Gordon Dobson during the first International Geophysical Year in 1957-58!!!

The notion of an “ozone hole” didn’t come about until after Dobson died on March 10, 1976.

Get Dobson’s two books (the 1963 and 1968 editions) “Exploring the Atmosphere” and take a look at the data that he published (he had been collecting stratospheric data since the 1920’s). [Even with the seasonal thinning at the South Pole, the density of stratospheric ozone is even thinner at the Equator, for goodness sake!]

Anyway, any readers who are sincerely interested in these issues should do the homework.
 
Al_Masetti said:
Absolutely correct.

The seasonal “ozone thinning” at the South Pole was discovered by Gordon Dobson during the first International Geophysical Year in 1957-58!!!

The notion of an “ozone hole” didn’t come about until after Dobson died on March 10, 1976.

Get Dobson’s two books (the 1963 and 1968 editions) “Exploring the Atmosphere” and take a look at the data that he published (he had been collecting stratospheric data since the 1920’s). [Even with the seasonal thinning at the South Pole, the density of stratospheric ozone is even thinner at the Equator, for goodness sake!]

Anyway, any readers who are sincerely interested in these issues should do the homework.
Click to expand...
This reminds me of the biologists who taught there are 48 human chromosones – and literally tried to defrock the sceptic who actually counted them and found 46!😉

Or how the medical community rejected the idea of a microbial cause for ulcers – until a “discredited” researcher in Australia proved it.
 
It may not win next year’s Best Documentary Oscar, but the British doc “The Great Global Warming Swindle” created quite a stir when it was aired Thursday on the UK’s Channel Four. Richard North - co-editor of EU Referendum - was watching and has this review for Pajamas Media. Five excerpts from the documentary are appended.

More…

There is some video at the link. I would suggest people watch it.
 
Several days ago I recounted a study that showed that sun spots were the greatest contributer global weather change and human activity was extremely minor in comparison. Someone, I think I know who but will let it go for now, suggested with an overload of mockery that this idea was just the latest of “neo con” ideas. I bit my proverbial typewriter then knowing that the person lacked any reasoned response or he would not have written what he did. Naturally he owes me, and most of the world an apology. I won’t hold my breath.

I learned to take most of the “end of the world” scenarios with a grain of salt as most are agenda driven and most are offered simply as either a way to syphon off grant money or are offered by dupes who have no identity of their own and so tag their identity to the latest fad no matter how unsupportable it is.

In most cases the best advice is to follow the money. This film as demonstrated to me that the money grubbers are at it again. They will destroy the reputations of our best scientists in order to get their way and their money. They apparently are willing even to sacrifice an entire continent of people just to get their own way. Once they’ve syphoned off money and wasted our energies and time and caused the deaths of millions more people they will move onto the next fad that will make them money. I wish these ne’er do wells were forced to actually make an honest living.

I doubt that there can be proved a direct causal link between these would be Marxists and true Marxists and the hatred of blacks but I suspect there is.

Maranatha.

CDL
 
There is a lot of science on both sides of this issue and that can be a problem for anyone really searching for the truth of the matter. It’s also pretty obvious that a lot of what is being said is politically, not scientifically, motivated. The question is: which side is stretching the truth and why?

Start with “why?” There are obvious non-scientific reasons for supporting the idea but it’s not so obvious to me what the incentive is for opposing it. I’m sure it is more obvious to others.

On the other hand, I think it is more difficult to explain scientific exaggerations like the hockey-stick chart. This was the poster child for the third assessment report six years ago but is not even included in the fourth summary report. What happened to it? There were some serious attempts to debunk it as well as a hearty defense of it, and now it’s gone without a comment. It’s hard not to infer that it was bad science motivated by and endorsed for the wrong reasons. It’s certainly fair to ask, if all the science supports the idea of anthropogenic warming, why “errors” like this occur.

Ender
 
I agree that arguably most probably sun spots [remember when if you mentioned sun spots people would roll their eyes at you?] is [are?] the cause of global weather/climate change.

There are other natural factors also such as Milankovich cycles and cosmic rays. [Apparently we still cannot account for 90% or so of the mass and energy of the universe … they call it “dark matter” … if I could supply an audio track to this post, I would make it that scary mansion organ music.]

ANYWAY, in my humble opinion, [and I have absolutely no numbers for this] volcanoes supply a lot of heat to the surface world of this planet earth.

There are 1000 surface volcanoes and maybe 20,000 subsea volcanoes. The earth itself is mostly molten rock at 4000 degrees or so with a very thin crust that MOVES around. So the really hot leakage from the core must add some heat to the surface world. But, as I said I have no data. As far as I have been able to determine, we don’t even have a decent inventory of the total number of volcanoes. And a lot of the subsea “volcanoes” are really linear splits in the earth’s crust. “Stuff” of all types … gases and solids and superheated liquids leak out constantly.

We do know that when a medium or small volcano goes off, it causes tremendous disruption to the surface world. Mount St. Helens is merely a “small” volcano.
GregoryPalamas said:
Several days ago I recounted a study that showed that sun spots were the greatest contributer global weather change and human activity was extremely minor in comparison. Someone, I think I know who but will let it go for now, suggested with an overload of mockery that this idea was just the latest of “neo con” ideas. I bit my proverbial typewriter then knowing that the person lacked any reasoned response or he would not have written what he did. Naturally he owes me, and most of the world an apology. I won’t hold my breath.

I learned to take most of the “end of the world” scenarios with a grain of salt as most are agenda driven and most are offered simply as either a way to syphon off grant money or are offered by dupes who have no identity of their own and so tag their identity to the latest fad no matter how unsupportable it is.

In most cases the best advice is to follow the money. This film as demonstrated to me that the money grubbers are at it again. They will destroy the reputations of our best scientists in order to get their way and their money. They apparently are willing even to sacrifice an entire continent of people just to get their own way. Once they’ve syphoned off money and wasted our energies and time and caused the deaths of millions more people they will move onto the next fad that will make them money. I wish these ne’er do wells were forced to actually make an honest living.

I doubt that there can be proved a direct causal link between these would be Marxists and true Marxists and the hatred of blacks but I suspect there is.

Maranatha.

CDL
Click to expand...
 
I think what we should do instead of complaining about cow and human flatulence and the use of oil is to make a big batch of super glue and send Algore and MikeWM around to seak out and seal up all the volcanoes on earth.😛

CDL
 
GregoryPalamas said:
Now if we could just get President Bush to admit his mistake in backing this balogne “science” we might be able to save our country some money that could be used for valuable purposes.

CDL
Click to expand...
As a person who has listened to five million Oscar Meyer commercials … b-o-l-o-g-n-a

Or… baloney.

But seriously folks, [an old Steve Allen-ism] collecting data is a good thing. The important issue, though, is to publish ALL the data, not just a few of the tree rings.
 
GregoryPalamas said:
I think what we should do instead of complaining about cow and human flatulence and the use of oil is to make a big batch of super glue and send Algore and MikeWM around to seak out and seal up all the volcanoes on earth.😛
Click to expand...
I get to meet Al Gore? Sounds good to me. Though a bit too hot for my liking. Can we go on a tour of the icecaps instead?

Seriously though, see post 37. Volcanoes are not the major issue they are made out to be by those trying to obscure the facts.

Mike
 
MikeWM said:
I get to meet Al Gore? Sounds good to me. Though a bit too hot for my liking. Can we go on a tour of the icecaps instead?

Seriously though, see post 37. Volcanoes are not the major issue they are made out to be by those trying to obscure the facts.

Mike
Click to expand...
If you have lunch with Al Gore, will he eat all the food leaving you with nothing to eat, but on average each of you will have had a satisfying meal?

Will you have to pay $25,000 for a cup of coffee (which is what “they” used to charge for White House coffee).
 
Al_Masetti said:
If you have lunch with Al Gore, will he eat all the food leaving you with nothing to eat, but on average each of you will have had a satisfying meal?

Will you have to pay $25,000 for a cup of coffee (which is what “they” used to charge for White House coffee).
Click to expand...
Al will save you from the evil effects of overeating and make sure you aren’t too rich to get into heaven.😉
 
Vern beat me to the gun. My son showed me this:

video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792811497638&q=The+Great+Global+Warming+Swindle&hl=en

No one besides Vern seems to have watched the video. It takes a little more than an hour. Everyone should see it. It was aired on British television on March 9.
Especially cltnsprg did not watch it, reading what he wrote. The credibility of IPPC UN report is also totally suspect due to the censorship that occured of the final report.

It refutes Al Gore using the ALL the data from ice cores. Carbon dioxide is irrelevant to tmeperature. We had three decades of falling temperatures during the post war economic boom when lots of CO2 was being poured out.

Humans produce little CO2 in comparison to the oceans and animals and bacteria.
It goes into the history and the philosophy of this idea and the culprits range from right to left. The romanticization of peasant life seems to be a recurrent theme among the anti-carbon crowd. Just do without they say. Yeah, right.

The morality of the anti-carbon crowd’s goals are also discussed at the end. Matthew 25 comes to mind when you think about the consequences for world’s poor , if governments use totalitarian measures to institute carbon reduction.
 
Leeta said:
Humans produce little CO2 in comparison to the oceans and animals and bacteria.
It goes into the history and the philosophy of this idea and the culprits range from right to left. The romanticization of peasant life seems to be a recurrent theme among the anti-carbon crowd. Just do without they say. Yeah, right.
Click to expand...
Just this morning I did not see Al Gore down by the creek, clad in a bark cloth breech clout, grubbing for freshwater mussels and eating them raw.😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top