Global Warming is a Fraud

[Pidgey]

Richard,

There are a few threads on this forum that are concurrently discussing this same subject. I suppose that you could say it's been argued six ways from Sunday. I understand your passion and this seems to be the one and only thread you've posted on so far. Tell you what... you might try kicking back and reading through another concurrent thread in this forum that might expand your horizons on the debate as a whole. Follow all the links and read all the references. Shouldn't take more than a few days but I think it's worth the ride. Go here:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2369

Pidgey

 

[Richard Savage]

Thank you for your kind advice; I'll take it, as I consider the free exchange of ideas to be the value of these discussion forums. In the meantime, let me share a few comments with you.

As mentioned above, the ice has been melting for a long time. There are natural changes in the earth’s climate that are cyclical, which occur over many thousands of years; however it is the acceleration of the change during the past few centuries that is alarming. There is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays that is being depleted by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere; and it is indisputable that man is a significant contributor to this pollution.

What is needed is to restore the natural balance; we need to stop spewing man-made chemical emissions into the atmosphere in order to allow nature to heal itself. When you are dealing with the balance of natural forces, it only takes a little change to have big consequences. For example: a little mentioned aspect of global warming is the dramatic decrease in Antarctic krill; which is significant both for its role in regulating carbon emissions into the atmosphere and because it is at the base of the ocean food chain - not to mention a substantial commercial harvest. Krill feed on phytoplankton beneath the sea ice, and it is the melting sea ice due to rising temperature that has caused the decrease in krill populations. This decrease, in turn, will dramatically increase of amount of carbon emissions, exacerbating global warming and its effects. See article at: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060206230630.htm

 

[Dr.Who]

From the site you posted:

A carbon tax should be revenue-neutral. At least that’s what we (Carbon Tax Center) and many other carbon tax proponents are advocating. Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the American people, with some small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users.


http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase

If I wanted to increase taxes and create new global taxes I certainly would say just that. Then..oops...we need a new Department of Energy Credits and we need...

So what would this do to the economy? Read this for a tiny taste:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339831,00.html

from the piece:

"Just this week the Environmental Protection Agency issued its economic analysis of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill that is being considered by the Senate. The EPA projects that if the bill is enacted the size of our economy as measured by its gross domestic product would shrink by as much as $2.9 trillion by the year 2050.

That’s a 6.9 percent smaller economy than we otherwise might have if no action were taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. For an idea of what that might mean, consider our current economic crisis.

For more perspective, consider that during 1929 and 1930, the first two years of the Great Depression, GDP declined by 8.6 percent and 6.4 percent, respectively. And what would we get for such a massive self-inflicted wound? It ought to be something that is climatically spectacular, right? You be the judge. "

So read the article and judge whether or not we would benefit by damaging the economy more than the great depression did.

 

[revolution4PAUL]

.



http://www.livevideo.com/video/UKUF...55B21056C/the-great-global-warming-swind.aspx


this is the best link i have come across explaining how global warming is NOT BECAUSE OF CO2!!!!!!

WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP? SPREAD THE TRUTH!!!

 

[roger2008]

Critics of claims that scientists and others concerned with global warming are promoting a fraud or hoax have commonly used the term "conspiracy theory" to describe this view. Oil and coal companies in the United States have joined in a conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts, and then begin raising political arguments that are essentially fraudulent.
__________________________________________________________________
Carhartt Clothes budapest property

 

[bododie]

Bummer that 95% of the ice caps that melted refroze, 2007 was one of if not the coldest years in recent record, and those poor little polar bears that were once 12,000 in number are now 25,000 in number. Maybe the bears are neo-cons because they are bucking liberal thought.

 

[Libsmasher]

Bummer that 95% of the ice caps that melted refroze, 2007 was one of if not the coldest years in recent record, and those poor little polar bears that were once 12,000 in number are now 25,000 in number. Maybe the bears are neo-cons because they are bucking liberal thought.

FOOL! The neocons parachuted in more bears!

 

[bododie]

FOOL! The neocons parachuted in more bears!

Good, at least those bears know who daddy was.

 

[DemocratLupis]

700 page scientific study global warming exists and has happend

Would you rather have global warming, or global cooling...take your pick...

 

[Dr.Who]

700 page scientific study global warming exists and has happend

Would you rather have global warming, or global cooling...take your pick...

Well if I get to pick I would rather have global warming since the last time that happened it was a period of unprecedented prosperity, since for most of Earth's history it has been warmer than now and that norm is actually a good thing.

But my picking sides has no effect whatsoever. Nor does it matter if politicians or scientists pick sides. My wanting a thing will not effect the reality of it.

so what is left is for me to recognize what is real based not on what I want but on what the facts say. More and more scientists are now rejecting the GW view.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...rty-years-of-warmer-temperatures-go-poof.aspx

 

[palerider]

As mentioned above, the ice has been melting for a long time. There are natural changes in the earth’s climate that are cyclical, which occur over many thousands of years; however it is the acceleration of the change during the past few centuries that is alarming.

Why is it alarming? As the ice melts back and more ground is exposed, exactly what is surprising about an acceleration of the warming trend. If you live in an area that sees snowfall that stays till winter is over, you see the same thing every spring.

There is only a thin layer of ozone that shields the earth from the sun’s rays that is being depleted by hydrocarbon emissions into the atmosphere; and it is indisputable that man is a significant contributor to this pollution.

A question for you Richard. Suppose that you are at the beach, knee deep in the surf and someone comes screaming in your face that you must get out of the surf because you are wearing it down and anyone can see that the surf is the only thing between the ocean and the land and it is the surf that keeps the oceans from flooding the land. What do you say to the person who has told you such a thing?

 

[palerider]

FOOL! The neocons parachuted in more bears!

I thought that they were grizzly bears that had been spray painted white using pre flourocarbon ban spray paint.

 

[palerider]

700 page scientific study global warming exists and has happend

Would you rather have global warming, or global cooling...take your pick...

Can you show any credible science stating that the earth is now, or has in the recent past been at the optimum temperature to support life? Are you aware that for the bulk of earth history, it has been so warm that no ice existed at all at one or both of the poles?

 

[Chip]

Having examined the evidence some time ago, I have come to the following conclusions:

Our planet is changing temperature caused by its own cycles as it has done for many eras.

Our planet is also changing temperature caused by our own waste products.

How much of which is causing what temperature changes appears difficult to say, and the presentation of answers about which is doing what depends on which set of authorities is speaking.

There is not much we can do about temperature changes caused by our planet's own cycles, even if such changes may spell our doom ... though I would feel better about our species if we'd give it a good try, as going out with a Darwin Award isn't tremendously laudable.

There is everything we can do about our own waste products ... and the unconjecturably known damage our pollution is causing does create a potential species-ending scenario ... so we would do well to clamp down globally on pollution as much as possible as soon as possible.

I get the distinct impression, however, that the "Global Warming" debate isn't really so much about "warming" or the obvious dire consequences, but is really about who will pay for fixing the problem.

So, once again, the Money System is standing in the way of our planetary clean-up ... maybe even to the degree that we are being prevented from saving ourselves.

Indeed, it is so obvious, that the Money System's foundational directive ... is the destruction of humanity.

 

[palerider]

Having examined the evidence some time ago, I have come to the following conclusions:

Our planet is changing temperature caused by its own cycles as it has done for many eras.

Our planet is also changing temperature caused by our own waste products.

How much of which is causing what temperature changes appears difficult to say, and the presentation of answers about which is doing what depends on which set of authorities is speaking.

Not to be argumentative, well, yes, to be argumentative since it is my nature, I would like to ask 3 questions since you have examined the evidence.

1. Of the total amount of earth's CO2 emissions, what is the percentage of human contribution of those CO2 emissions?

2. What laws of physics, thermodynamics, or natural science support how the percentage of human emissions can effect global temperatures?

3. Earth is a dynamic, open system with a multitude of feedback loops. Again, using the percentage of human CO2 emissions, describe to me the mechanism or system archetype's that explain Global Warming or Climate Change and how can they be used to predict future CC trends.