The Great Global Warming Swindle

rickoff · #**481** (**permalink**) 01-12-2010, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jibbguy

I wouldn't trust Gore as far as i could throw him, but that goes for Lord "Whats-him-name" and many others involved in this as well.

Although I do find Lord Monckton personable and intelligent, and while he does cite relevant and reliable data to support his arguments, I too tend to distrust anyone who dons the name Lord this, Lady that, Excellency, etc. And you are right - the masters of the game will win no matter how the game is played out, no matter what we side with. They already have advantageous (for them) scenarios to play out based upon every possible outcome. We have no way of knowing which outcome they may actually prefer, but in the end it makes little difference to them. Either way it is about energy, and their domination over it. So you are right - we really need to get busy on independent energy solutions.

Rick

Shamus · #**482** (**permalink**) 01-12-2010, 04:49 AM

@Aaron: OK, I get it now.

And even if I disagree with jibb on this subject I still like the guy and think we probably agree on more things than we disagree.

@jibbguy: I agree that both sides are being played against the middle--why on earth would I trust an English Lord any more than I would a member of the Council on Foreign Relations like Al Gore? As to "effects"... You have to admit that there is no consensus on the issue, that things like glaciers and permafrost are being cherry-picked (as Joit pointed out) on both sides? That it's just plain silly to go around yelling that 'we've got to do something about this' when there is no agreement about exactly what 'this' is?

Again, I stand by my research into the Club of Rome and The First Global Revolution that they wrote. They flatly stated that what the world needed was a new common enemy to unite mankind and that anthropogenic global warming would 'fit the bill'. And what are we seeing today but a ham-fisted version of this being played out in the mainstream media (and I count mainstream science journals among them)? First it was "global warming" before it became "climate change" (and those are undeniably weasel words: give me a break--the climate is always changing!). And before that, in the 1970s mainstream articles were solemnly warning about how we were headed into another ice age.

So where is the evidence that drastic measures are needed to prevent, uh, er, whatever it is we're supposed to prevent? Yes, Big Oil and pollution are bad and doing bad things to the planet. That much is obvious. Personally I think that even Big Oil is being used and that soon you'll start hearing less about "climate change" and more about "peak oil" (more nonsense) which has even more potential than AGW for mischief (no oil means ~80% of the world gets to starve; fun eh?). But that's just my gut, I have no proof and it's just pure speculation.

You are right about whomever is pulling the strings behind the scenes (be it NWO or whatever) being masters of "psych control", as you put it. If there is to be any great awakening and ousting of them from the seats of power people have got to start smashing their televisions.

And since this has started to stray off topic, out of respect for Peter, I'll stop right here.

ashtweth · #**483** (**permalink**) 01-15-2010, 12:07 PM

YouTube - Global Warming - the terrifying reality

rickoff · #**484** (**permalink**) 01-15-2010, 08:52 PM

Great little video, Ash. I enjoyed that.

Joit · #**485** (**permalink**) 01-17-2010, 02:52 AM

The whole Story from T. Balden, online translated -
"Tim comes into the club tommorow..."
probatly with some spelling Errors.

Peter Lindemann · #**486** (**permalink**) 01-21-2010, 04:21 PM

Hi Folks,

Here is a new article from the Technology Review.

Technology Review: Climate Change Authority Admits Mistake

Enjoy,
Peter

Joit · #**487** (**permalink**) 01-21-2010, 07:34 PM

There is fearmongering at the whole Argument of,
when Glaciers are gone, there will be thousands of Peoples without Water.

I do life close to Mountains, but there is allways Water,
even when there are not big Glaciers on them, some forgotten one are in some Corners.
But the whole Area has enough Reservoir to store the Rainwater.

And even, when it rains on the Mountain, it takes ten thousand Years and more,
till the Water comes out from a spring, that is the Time,
what it needs to run through all the Earth.
The whole Point from IPCC on that is untenable.

Aaron · #**488** (**permalink**) 01-21-2010, 09:41 PM

Even if there are zero glaciers on the planet, there is still "Primary Water"
that is created inside the earth, fills aquifers, responsible for rising
ocean levels, etc...

Volume of water equal to Atlantic Ocean under China...
Huge 'Ocean' Discovered Inside Earth | LiveScience
Maybe Shambalaya is real

Check out:
Earth Generated Water
Stephen Riess

Anyway, there is no lack of clean water if they just put effort into
looking in the right places.

ashtweth · #**489** (**permalink**) 01-21-2010, 11:36 PM

Ron's News and Musings: Global Warming: Leave CO2 Alone!

ashtweth · #**490** (**permalink**) 01-21-2010, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickoff

So you are right - we really need to get busy on independent energy solutions.Rick

HERE HERE, there is no other HACK than that my friend, and i am here till then end

Environments and ecology would be renewed,
Economies would be revived,
Poverty and famine could be eliminated,
Power struggles over depleting resources would cease.

Then i may even be able to have time to get to Rick's and jib's and help get that dam mag motor working

lamare · #**491** (**permalink**) 01-22-2010, 11:48 AM

Nature on "The real holes in climate science":
The real holes in climate science : Nature News

Quote:

there are some major gaps in the understanding of climate science. In its most recent report in 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted 54 'key uncertainties' that complicate climate science.

Yes, that's FIFTY-FOUR!

The essence ( Is de leemte in onze kennis een gapend gat? » Climategate: feiten en duiding in het klimaatdebat in Dutch):

Quote:

Such holes do not undermine the fundamental conclusion that humans are warming climate, which is based on 20th century temperature changes and the inability of climate models to simulate such warming without including the role of greenhouse gas pollution.

According to this Dutch article, this is the only reason there is that CO2 is to blame for the rising temperature, and therefore also the only reason to have any confidence in their models.

--

Another interesting document: http://www.cred.columbia.edu/guide/p...e_full-res.pdf

"The Psychology of Climate Change Communication" -- AKA "brainwashing for dummies"

nilrehob · #**492** (**permalink**) 01-30-2010, 12:12 PM

Tennessee Burger King Defends Its "Global Warming Is Baloney" Sign

/Hob

Joit · #**493** (**permalink**) 02-02-2010, 09:04 PM

Hacker did break again into a Server and stole Emission trade rights from a German Server in Potsdam.
With a Hackerattack into the official Register for Emission trade are obvious Pullution rights stolen in worth from Billions.

They did send first a Email with a Header from Potsdam DEHSt with a Warning,
about a upcoming Hackerattack, and the Clients should register new,
then they transfered the Rights to Accounts in Danmark and UK,
and then, this 'Criminals' did sell the rights further to other companys.

(!Remember, where COP and IPCC is/was? )

The Rights trade from the Broker and the Energy stock is not afffected from this.
But the Offices in Belgium, Danemark, Spain, Hungary, Italy, Greek, Romania and Bulgary stay closed during the Week.
But affected are Merchants, Industrial Companies and Power Companies

So, does anyone think it is over and 'just forget about it'?
Because, what the Stock market once have in his Hands, or would Claws match better,
is like ask a Snake, to open her Mouth, when shes eating
or take the Bone away from a Dog.

Whole Europe is involved into the Pollution trade, and it does not seems like
they leave it just with few kind Words.

lamare · #**494** (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 08:34 AM

NASA satellite could pave way for policing CO2 emissions - space - 02 February 2010 - New Scientist

Quote:

NASA will launch a replacement for the Orbiting Carbon Observatory, a $278 million satellite that was lost during launch last year, the White House announced on Monday. The replacement, which should be able to measure man-made carbon dioxide emissions from cities and power plants, could pave the way for space probes designed to enforce future climate treaties.

The Orbiting Carbon Observatory was lost in February 2009 when a protective fairing atop the probe's Taurus XL rocket failed to separate during launch, and the satellite fell into the Pacific Ocean.

The loss was seen as a setback by climate scientists, who hoped the probe's unprecedented spatial resolution and sensitivity would help reveal how the Earth absorbs and emits carbon dioxide. Less than half of the carbon released since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution has ended up in the atmosphere, but the carbon "sinks" that have absorbed the remainder are not well understood.

The satellite would have had the added bonus of testing whether space probes could be used to measure carbon dioxide emissions from cities and power plants, the US National Research Council said in a letter report to NASA administrator Charles Bolden last year.

Now, the White House has given the green light for a carbon copy to be flown, providing $170 million towards the effort in its proposed 2011 budget (pdf). "The good news in this budget is the president has decided that this is an important mission for both science and understanding our climate," NASA science chief Edward Weiler said in a briefing with reporters on Tuesday. The replacement, called OCO-2, could fly as early as February 2013.

Peter Lindemann · #**495** (**permalink**) 02-06-2010, 03:40 AM

Hi Folks,

Here is the latest BBC Poll on Climate Change, as public opinion shifts in the wake of the Climate-Gate disclosures.

BBC News - Climate scepticism 'on the rise', BBC poll shows

Peter

Mad Scientist · #**496** (**permalink**) 02-07-2010, 03:51 AM

Now that the EPA has declared that carbon dioxide is a poisonous gas I what all global warming environmentalists to inhale only. Do not exhale as you are poisoning our environment.

lamare · #**497** (**permalink**) 02-08-2010, 08:20 AM

I just watched an interview with Dr. Michael Coffman in "on target" several years ago. This is an interesting fellow, a.o. talking about "ECO fraud". Apparantly there are multiple videos online, see google.

He also talks about the reasons behind this eco fraud, "global governance":
Global Governance

And he wrote this article:
http://www.discerningtoday.org/scientists_disclaim.pdf

Quote:

Dr. Fred Singer, an atmospheric and space physicist, and founder and president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project, provided very convincing evidence that CO2 is not playing a significant role in planetary warming. Citing a paper he co-authored in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology, Dr. Singer informed the audience that the physics of CO2-driven global warming require that the mid-troposphere warm faster than the surface by 2-3oC. Consequently, all global warming models have this relationship built into them (Figure 1).

However, real-world temperature measurements do not show this predicted warming – at all! (Figure 2) This stunning evidence carries far reaching ramifications. Although it totally discredits CO2 driven warming, at least as it is presently theorized, global warming alarmists and the highly politicized UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) refuse to even consider it. When cornered on the subject, they have said that evidence does support their theory. In doing so, the alarmists admit they are politically motivated, and will do or say anything to protect their agenda at the complete sacrifice of true science.
This and far more hard evidence is presented in a new document released at the meeting called “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate.” The document, released at the conference as a “Summary for Policymakers,” provides overwhelming scientific evidence that man is not responsible for global warming. Yet, it is written in a way that can be understood by the average person. The document was written by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group of 23 leading scientists on climate change from 15 nations, and represents the best summary of current research on the subject. You can download it at http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf

There are also quite some articles over here that appear interesting:
Background Articles and Reports

This is also interesting:
http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovern...ew_OISM150.pdf

Quote:

ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.

More here: Global Warming or Global Governance?

Also interesting is the article "Science: Another Ice Age?" in Time Magazine, dated Monday, Jun. 24, 1974:
Science: Another Ice Age? - TIME

Of course, also back then, "man" was probably to blame:

Quote:

Man, too, may be somewhat responsible for the cooling trend. The University of Wisconsin's Reid A. Bryson and other climatologists suggest that dust and other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be blocking more and more sunlight from reaching and heating the surface of the earth.

And, of course, this was alarming:

Quote:

Whatever the cause of the cooling trend, its effects could be extremely serious, if not catastrophic. Scientists figure that only a 1% decrease in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth's surface could tip the climatic balance, and cool the planet enough to send it sliding down the road to another ice age within only a few hundred years.

The earth's current climate is something of an anomaly; in the past 700,000 years, there have been at least seven major episodes of glaciers spreading over much of the planet. Temperatures have been as high as they are now only about 5% of the time. But there is a peril more immediate than the prospect of another ice age. Even if temperature and rainfall patterns change only slightly in the near future in one or more of the three major grain-exporting countries—the U.S., Canada and Australia —global food stores would be sharply reduced. University of Toronto Climatologist Kenneth Hare, a former president of the Royal Meteorological Society, believes that the continuing drought and the recent failure of the Russian harvest gave the world a grim premonition of what might happen. Warns Hare: "I don't believe that the world's present population is sustainable if there are more than three years like 1972 in a row."

-- Arend --

Joit · #**498** (**permalink**) 02-09-2010, 05:53 PM

Someone else postet this Link at another Forum.

Quote:

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'

Top Obama czar: Infiltrate all 'conspiracy theorists'
Presidential adviser wrote about crackdown on expressing opinions

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 14, 2010
12:30 am Eastern

By Aaron Klein
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Cass Sunstein

In a lengthy academic paper, President Obama's regulatory czar, Cass Sunstein, argued the U.S. government should ban "conspiracy theorizing."

Among the beliefs Sunstein would ban is advocating that the theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud.

Sunstein also recommended the government send agents to infiltrate "extremists who supply conspiracy theories" to disrupt the efforts of the "extremists" to propagate their theories.

In a 2008 Harvard law paper, "Conspiracy Theories," Sunstein and co-author Adrian Vermeule, a Harvard law professor, ask, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"
"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

In the 30-page paper – obtained and reviewed by WND – Sunstein argues the best government response to "conspiracy theories" is "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups."
Continued Sunstein: "We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

Read more about Cass Sunstein's agenda in "Shut Up, America!: The End of Free Speech"

Sunstein said government agents "might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

Sunstein defined a conspiracy theory as "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who have also managed to conceal their role."

Some "conspiracy theories" recommended for ban by Sunstein include:

"The theory of global warming is a deliberate fraud."

"The view that the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy."

"The 1996 crash of TWA flight 800 was caused by a U.S. military missile."

"The Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy."

"That Martin Luther King Jr. was killed by federal agents."

"The moon landing was staged and never actually occurred."
Sunstein allowed that "some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true."

I only have a laugh for this Guy, either he life at home by Mommy,
or he s expecting a better paycheck.

I guess, thats a sure "NO", its not over

lamare · #**499** (**permalink**) 02-09-2010, 05:54 PM

Lawrence Solomon: Wikipediaâ€™s climate doctor - FP Comment

Quote:

How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

ashtweth · #**500** (**permalink**) 02-09-2010, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamare

Lawrence Solomon: Wikipediaâ€™s climate doctor - FP Comment

Yep its this method
Disinformation Tactics: The Methods Used To Keep You In The Dark « Pak Alert Press

rickoff · #**501** (**permalink**) 02-13-2010, 09:49 PM

rickoff · #**502** (**permalink**) 02-13-2010, 09:54 PM

From the February 7 Sunday Times, an article by Jonathan Leake:

Quote:

A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.
Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.
The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general. This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.

To read more of the article, go here: Africagate: top British scientist says UN panel is losing credibility - Times Online

rickoff · #**503** (**permalink**) 02-13-2010, 10:01 PM

wpage · #**504** (**permalink**) 02-13-2010, 10:17 PM

Unfortunately the UN appears to be heading down the same rough road the League of Nations its forerunner tread.
Much to Woodrow Wilsons chagrin. The League of Nations stumbled when nations filled with special interests and intent on playing politics on a global scale failed its mission. Oddly enough the League of Nations proved a global stage for early grandstanding by former puppet governments.

Fast forward four score to history repeating itself. Except now the real pro's are there except with data to back it up. Too bad the data is invented and paid to be all you paid for it to be.
Add to that all the lessons learned from the LON applied to the UN... Who wants to be king of the world?

Seriously the UN needs to be out of the US and the US needs out of the UN. It is in worse then the League of Nations ever was or might have been.

Let the Somalians have the UN central and turn the UN building into a nice homeless shelter. There are plenty of vagrents in NYC looking for upscale digs with good access to mass transit.

Sephiroth · #**505** (**permalink**) 02-14-2010, 04:40 PM

Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online

Peter Lindemann · #**506** (**permalink**) 02-14-2010, 05:16 PM

Sephiroth,

GOOD WORK! You beat me to that one! But here is another story on the same topic:

MAIL ON SUNDAY COMMENT: The professor's amazing climate change retreat | Mail Online

Peter

Aaron · #**507** (**permalink**) 02-14-2010, 10:04 PM

Boo hoo! What a sob story - up to his neck in papers and data.

I remember seeing in the emails that denying some FOIA requests
were PREMEDITATED! Not because "oh my - we can't fulfill this
because we can't find the papers!" It was discussed in the context
that "we should deny".

Nice try Mr. Phil - it is good you're partially admitting you were running
a monkey show but tell the truth and not a half-hearted attempt to
safe face. No sympathy - your incompetance, which may have been
intentional or not makes you an accomplice for one of the largest frauds in
modern history.

WCastle · #**508** (**permalink**) 02-17-2010, 08:37 PM

WOW !! amazing , you mean global warming IS a hoax ?

Imagine that.

One thing about these particular hoaxers is that they will not give up, I am still seeing references to "the fact of global warming" even though the data has shown otherwise.

The big overall scam is pretty dark indeed , good people have been duped into thinking they are "saving the planet" when the whole scam is planned out in the United Nations Agenda21 (alleged plan for sustainable development)

sounds good to the ear however the entire plan is really adverse to the people.

Aaron · #**509** (**permalink**) 02-17-2010, 09:01 PM

Al Gore talked about pushing forward in Mexico this June or July. One of the
worst polluted cities in the world and at one of the hottest times of the
year. I think he is tired of it raining or uh, snowing on his parade every time
making a mockery out of it!

Yeah, the whole thing is very dark!

Joit · #**510** (**permalink**) 02-18-2010, 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WCastle

WOW !! amazing , you mean global warming IS a hoax ?

.

Just ask your Neighbour, Friend or Peoples on the Street,
if the know, how much CO2 is actually at the Atmosphere or how much they guess, and be surprise of her Answer.
Kinda Funny sometimes, but you can see, how much really know about,
and if the Gouvernments are really up to, to say,
'No sorry Peoples, it was a Hoax, and you dont have to pay the Pollution Tax anymore'.

Just to to remember, 380 ppm(Parts per Million) thats 0,038%,
manmade from this Amount are again 3%, what equals 0,00117%,
and this Value we should change over the next 20 Years for 10% with Billions,
where the whole Money goes for the most part over the Broker and Banker.