Major scandal; Now proven that the entire global warming threat is based on fabricated data

  • Thread starter Thread starter WinterWH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
False studies are being used to tax the United States into abject poverty. By making electricity so expensive through Cap & Trade that people will spend all their money for energy.

AND, even more tax money will be sent abroad to the dictatorships already established in third world countries:

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/#more-11739

All based on falsified data as described in the OP. That got fed into unverified computer models.

We are headed for disaster, with the United States being turned into another impoverished Communist satellite nation.
 
fultonfish said:
False studies are being used to tax the United States into abject poverty. By making electricity so expensive through Cap & Trade that people will spend all their money for energy.

AND, even more tax money will be sent abroad to the dictatorships already established in third world countries:

wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/#more-11739

All based on falsified data as described in the OP. That got fed into unverified computer models.

We are headed for disaster, with the United States being turned into another impoverished Communist satellite nation.
Click to expand...
How much really is being spent on fighting global warming ??? In the grand scheme of things probably not nearly enough. I doubt we even spend 10 billion on the environment.

We just got a one Trillion dollar bailout for banks and big financial institutions, and we spend 70 to 80 Billion a year on Iraq and soon to be just as much on Afghanistan. Add in the massive defense budget and entitlements such as social security and there really is not a whole lot left for any other program.

You are probably talking about less than 1% of the federal budget, so claiming that global warming is improverishing the country is way off base. Wall street, defense, war, and social programs are improverishing the country. Money spent on the environment is an investment for our future, getting rid of our dependence on oil, keeping our air and water clean makes it liveable for future generations.

I would say we do not spend enough on the environment but we spend way too much on other stuff.
 
wcknight said:
How much really is being spent on fighting global warming ??? In the grand scheme of things probably not nearly enough. I doubt we even spend 10 billion on the environment.

We just got a one Trillion dollar bailout for banks and big financial institutions, and we spend 70 to 80 Billion a year on Iraq and soon to be just as much on Afghanistan. Add in the massive defense budget and entitlements such as social security and there really is not a whole lot left for any other program.

You are probably talking about less than 1% of the federal budget, so claiming that global warming is improverishing the country is way off base. Wall street, defense, war, and social programs are improverishing the country. Money spent on the environment is an investment for our future, getting rid of our dependence on oil, keeping our air and water clean makes it liveable for future generations.

I would say we do not spend enough on the environment but we spend way too much on other stuff.
Click to expand...
If we spend only $1 to combat global warming it is too much. Because AGW [anthropogenic (man-made) global warming] is a complete and total hoax.

But, unfortunately, we have government subsidy schemes to subsidize wind power and solar energy, both of which are grossly uneconomic and in the name of global warming.

And then there are CARBON CREDITS. A complete waste of money. In the name of global warming.

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care

We spend a FORTUNE on the environment in terms of pollution controls, in terms of bankrupting whole industries, such as irrigated farming in California because of some fish, such as no new nuclear electric generation reactors for decades thereby depriving us of reasonable and reliable (and pollution-free) electricity. Denial of drilling permits for oil in the USA[including Alaska where they have a LOT of oil] and offshore. Denial of mining coal (by President Clinton). LOTS of examples. The cost to the economy is in the many many billions.
 
wcknight said:
Money spent on the environment is an investment for our future, getting rid of our dependence on oil, keeping our air and water clean makes it liveable for future generations.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but this thread is not about any of the things you listed above; it is about whether or not man has significantly altered the climate. If we have not affected the climate then any money we spend to change an effect we didn’t cause and cannot alter, viz. solve a non-existent problem, seems like the very definition of wasted resources.

Ender
 
I think folks on this thread have been drinking the Kool Aid. We are stewards of this planet, and there is no other planet to go to when we finish destroying it.

All you need to do is take one look a city in China or India and know that this earth can not take much more of the abuse inflicted on it by use of fossil fuels.

IF we had not listened to the environmentalist in the 70’s and 80’s our rivers and cities would have worse polution than what we had back then. Only by a concerted effort were we able to clean up the air and our rivers. I guess that it a lesson long forgotten by folks who didn’t live through that time.

Big business and industry have always dragged their feet until people rise up and forced the government to do something about things. This situation is the same thing happening all over again. When the poluters all start crying foul, you know they are all singing the same old tune. The only thing they think about is the almighty dollar, and the here and now. They could care less about future generations or the health of this planet.

Well, if you ignore the problem now, you won’t have a second chance to fix the problem later.

One thing that you people are forgetting is that IF we can get away from heavy use of fossil fuels, we can also eliminate our reliance on foreign oil and the huge drain on our finances. All of the clean alternative energy sources has the added advantage of reducing our reliance on outside resources.

SO even if the global warming issue is a farce, every dime that we spend on alternative energy is still an investment in our future. Unless you want to continue to be tied to the middle east indefinitely, it makes more sense to go to other sources, the quicker the better,
 
IF you want to see real waste, just look at the Billions of dollars that we are spending each day on foreign oil, and look at the billions more spent on fighting wars to protect the oil sources. Do you really think we would be even close to Iraq or Afghanistan if we were no longer reliant on oil ??

We would never have been in there in the first place.
 
fultonfish said:
If we spend only $1 to combat global warming it is too much. Because AGW [anthropogenic (man-made) global warming] is a complete and total hoax.

But, unfortunately, we have government subsidy schemes to subsidize wind power and solar energy, both of which are grossly uneconomic and in the name of global warming.

And then there are CARBON CREDITS. A complete waste of money. In the name of global warming.

newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/06/04/gore-invests-carbon-credit-company-will-media-care

We spend a FORTUNE on the environment in terms of pollution controls, in terms of bankrupting whole industries, such as irrigated farming in California because of some fish, such as no new nuclear electric generation reactors for decades thereby depriving us of reasonable and reliable (and pollution-free) electricity. Denial of drilling permits for oil in the USA[including Alaska where they have a LOT of oil] and offshore. Denial of mining coal (by President Clinton). LOTS of examples. The cost to the economy is in the many many billions.
Click to expand...
If the $1 you spend fixes other problems as well it is money wwell spent. If you fix global warming by fixing our dependence on foreign oil it will be well worth it.

Sorry your data and conclusions are wrong to the extreme. It is economically feasible to use solar and wind. You can recapture costs for solar photoelectric panels within 10 years (for some, 15 to 20 for others), for solar water heater panels they pay back in 2 or 3 years. Plus new technologies are making the payoffs even sooner AND if more folks go that route the costs will shrink even further and faster.

Drilling for more oil even domestic is not the answer, more nuclear may help but geo themo is far better and less risky.

Carbon credits give businesses incentives to clean up their act, and it helps home owners to recapture costs of going solar or producing their own energy.

The negatives of mining far out weigh its benefits. You have strip mining which destroys the countryside, and coal miners who risk being trapped in cave ins and suffer from black lung. You’re talking about short term solutions to long term problems, and some of the short term solutions have problems of their own. Fix the problem correctly the first time and you don’t have to revisit them down the road.
 
wcknight said:
IF you want to see real waste, just look at the Billions of dollars that we are spending each day on foreign oil, and look at the billions more spent on fighting wars to protect the oil sources. Do you really think we would be even close to Iraq or Afghanistan if we were no longer reliant on oil ??

We would never have been in there in the first place.
Click to expand...
We wouldn’t need that foreign oil if we drilled in Alaska and offshore.
 
wcknight said:
I think folks on this thread have been drinking the Kool Aid. We are stewards of this planet, and there is no other planet to go to when we finish destroying it.
Click to expand...
False Dichotomy.

Doubting global warming has never been in opposition to being a good steward to the planet.
 
That is General Motors thinking. They destroyed the EV1 in the 1990s, because they thought the American public would never want a fuel-efficient car. Now, Toyota is selling almost 600,000 Prius’s a year. Toyota makes the best hybrid car, because they invested in the new technology first. Now they have a head start on everyone else.

When technology is new, it isn’t as efficient. Solar panels will gradually become more efficient. The question is whether the US government wants to encourage alternative energy research in North America? Or will we buy our solar panels from Germany and China?

Reducing pollution of all kinds is a no-brainer to me. When the Great Lakes were in really bad shape, new laws were introduced to reduce pollution, and now the Great Lakes (including fish stocks) are more healthy. We are reducing the waste going to landfills, by composing more and trying to avoid excess packaging.

Each American on average puts 22 tonnes of CO2 in the air each year. Why are the climate change deniers on this thread so much against reducing that pollution?

Almost all of the glaciers on the Earth are shrinking. Arctic ice is thinning each year. Much of the melting ice has been in place for tens of thousands of years or more. Plus, the ice is melting much faster than ever before.

Put that together with the warming of the surface of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, causing more frequent and stronger hurricanes.

With the number of weather records being set almost every year, how can you so quickly dismiss the scientists’ conclusions?

God created everything and I believe he loves all of his creation. We have a responsibility to take care of it. We should reduce the 22 tonnes of CO2 that we put into the air each year.
 
With the number of weather records being set almost every year, how can you so quickly dismiss the scientists’ conclusions?

Because this year they’re records for cold, duh.

Favorite current video.
 
CJFrancis said:
That is General Motors thinking. They destroyed the EV1 in the 1990s, because they thought the American public would never want a fuel-efficient car. Now, Toyota is selling almost 600,000 Prius’s a year. Toyota makes the best hybrid car, because they invested in the new technology first. Now they have a head start on everyone else.
Click to expand...
If they can manufacture a fuel efficient car that the public likes, great.
I am all for getting out of the middle east oil trap.
CJFrancis said:
Reducing pollution of all kinds is a no-brainer to me. When the Great Lakes were in really bad shape, new laws were introduced to reduce pollution, and now the Great Lakes (including fish stocks) are more healthy. We are reducing the waste going to landfills, by composing more and trying to avoid excess packaging.
Click to expand...
Less waste is a great thing. I’ll not deny that, but we should not enact laws based upon shoddy research. We need to have a very clear, very well researched, very credible, and achievable goal behind any type of environmental law. Laws based on psuedoscience and religious belief are a problem.
CJFrancis said:
Each American on average puts 22 tonnes of CO2 in the air each year. Why are the climate change deniers on this thread so much against reducing that pollution?
Click to expand...
Why should we? CO2 is not a pollutant, it is a naturally occurring gas that plants use to survive. Show me some real science to indicate that my CO2 is causing harm.
Thus far there have not been any.
CJFrancis said:
Almost all of the glaciers on the Earth are shrinking. Arctic ice is thinning each year. Much of the melting ice has been in place for tens of thousands of years or more. Plus, the ice is melting much faster than ever before.
Click to expand...
This is also in dispute as well.
It is November, and my area has had the coldest year ever.
CJFrancis said:
Put that together with the warming of the surface of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, causing more frequent and stronger hurricanes.
Click to expand...
What hurricanes?
I haven’t seen very many at all this year.
CJFrancis said:
With the number of weather records being set almost every year, how can you so quickly dismiss the scientists’ conclusions?
Click to expand...
With the length of time records have been kept, it is not surprising that new records come about all the time.
CJFrancis said:
God created everything and I believe he loves all of his creation. We have a responsibility to take care of it. We should reduce the 22 tonnes of CO2 that we put into the air each year.
Click to expand...
If you believe you should reduce your CO2 output, have at it.
But do not mandate I do so until there is credible evidence to show that my CO2 output is causing harm.
 
CJFrancis said:
Toyota makes the best hybrid car…
When technology is new,…
Reducing pollution of all kinds is a no-brainer to me.
Click to expand...
This debate isn’t about fuel efficiency, new technology, or pollution; it is about whether the CO2 man produces has led to global warming … and that’s all.
Each American on average puts 22 tonnes of CO2 in the air each year. Why are the climate change deniers on this thread so much against reducing that pollution?
Click to expand...
CO2 is no more a pollutant than water vapor is.
Almost all of the glaciers on the Earth are shrinking. Arctic ice is thinning each year. Much of the melting ice has been in place for tens of thousands of years or more. Plus, the ice is melting much faster than ever before.
Click to expand...
Even if this were true - which is debatable - the question is not whether there has been warming but whether CO2 was the cause.
Put that together with the warming of the surface of the Caribbean Sea and Gulf of Mexico, causing more frequent and stronger hurricanes.
Click to expand...
This one is not debatable: it is simply incorrect. In 2009 we reached a 30 year low in tropical cyclone energy. Again: this (if true) would be an argument that warming is occurring, not that CO2 is the cause.
With the number of weather records being set almost every year, how can you so quickly dismiss the scientists’ conclusions?
Click to expand...
Despite the fact that the latest records being set are all cold weather ones, again: this goes to the fact of warming, not about causation.

I think the wheels are coming off the AGW bandwagon. There will be more years of huffing and puffing but eventually this farce will go the way of the Piltdown Man.

Ender
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top