Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Man made global warming - it's a conspiracy


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 223 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 1 Dec 2012 14:00:07 GMT
easytiger says:
Most posters on these threads don't believe a word governments tell them and quite rightly so. The exception seems to be the current craze for the unproven 'science' of man-made global warming. Think about it; the majority of the world's governments are in collusion to spend billions of our money persuading us to don sackcloths and ashes to save the planet from something someone only thought up 25 years ago. If they say it's right then it must be wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 14:09:42 GMT
Sadly this thread presents a topic too complex for the "average man or woman" to know at the required level. However I am sure that many will jibber-jabber as if they "know".

"Some people will never learn anything, because they understand everything too soon".

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 14:15:58 GMT
easytiger says:
Nothing too complex about the issue really. If 'they' are telling you it's happening why on earth should you believe 'them'

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 14:20:54 GMT
Wot like they "tell" you the world is round...you think that is false eh?...think a bit...examine your epistemology.

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 14:40:36 GMT
easytiger says:
The world isn't round at all; examine your ellipsoidology.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 14:57:22 GMT
Ah...so you have no argument to make...nice!

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 15:04:25 GMT
easytiger says:
Not with hot air.

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 15:16:52 GMT
Peter Jenner says:
The relationship between 'greenhouse gas' build up in the atmosphere due to emissions and global temperature increase is well-established scientifically. The reduction in ice cover in the Arctic, the die-back of glaciers, the increase in extreme weather events, the increase in methane emissions due to melting permafrost, the rise in sea levels and so on all attest to the fact that 'global warming' is real and is happening now.

Governments have been forced to take this issue seriously because the science behind it is so overwhelming. That they are not taking it seriously enough is due to pressure from the fossil fuel lobby, associated corporations and their fully paid-up media advocates.

The cost of changing energy sourcing and lifestyles is miniscule compared to the cost of not doing so.

Packets of cigarettes carry a government health warning. Only a fool would ignore such a warning just because it carries the governmental imprimatur.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 15:18:15 GMT
So let's examine easyfairies position. EF thinks that given the complexity of the environment and the natural world he and others of his ilk can sort out the mass of data on climate change...sort it and KNOW which side speaks words closer to the truth...VERY funnoes!

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 15:27:13 GMT
Peter Jenner says:
BTW, easytiger, I've heard the FCO has advised potential British tourists (especially those with a tendency to be up-front about their nationality) that it would not be a good idea to visit Helmand Province in Afghanistan at the moment.

No doubt you'll be flying out to Kabul in the new year.

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 15:53:37 GMT
JimmyMac says:
easy,
I'm 100% with you on this one. It's the biggest global con ever. Designed to restrict us even more, and squeeze more carbon taxes out of us.
Oh by the way!...It's no longer fashionable to refer to the phenomena as "Global Warming" They now prefer to call it "Climate Change."

Analysis of polar ice core samples shows that the Earths atmospheric temperature has been fluctuating back and forth for millenia.
Borne out by the fact that the Romans had vineyards in the south of England, and what about those pictures of people skating on the Thames in Elizabethan times.
A visit to the NASA. website will show that every Planet in the Solar System has increased it's temperature slightly.
Now I wonder!....There has to be a common denominator!....I wonder what it could be??

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 15:59:56 GMT
easytiger says:
"The relationship between 'greenhouse gas' build up in the atmosphere due to emissions and global temperature increase is well-established scientifically."
No. They say it is but it isn't, that's exactly the point. We have the same scenario as we had with AIDS in the 80s; we are all doomed and anybody who questions this is denied funding. Simple tests show that historical rises in temperature were FOLLOWED by an increase in CO2 levels in the atmoshere, which knocks the whole thing on the head. The temperature on Earth isn't increasing by any significant level at all.
Even if it was I have a couple of points:
1. Why is the increase in the surface temp of the earth such a doomsday scenario? If it was freezing up and heading for an ice age I might be worried.
2. What gives humans the audacity to think they can control the temp of a spheroid spinning round the sun in changing orbits and tilts.
As regards your last post, I shall treat it with the contempt it deserves but will say that it's not too safe in the neighbouring country of Iraq either-you know the country that Blair and Bush invaded, the one with weapons of mass destruction. They were telling the truth about that I'm sure but they just haven't found them yet.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 16:01:26 GMT
easytiger says:
Cheers NB, so it's not just me.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 16:06:54 GMT
Ooohhhh no easy....there are many like you, and NB...so sure...knowing...ha he ha!

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 16:10:06 GMT
easytiger says:
Staying in again tonight are we fount-creature? Should I get some pop sent round? Vimto is it?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 16:20:10 GMT
Ah...the knowing mind...

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 16:39:20 GMT
Spin says:
What if Global warming is not a conspiricacy? Are you willing to take that chance nd be condemned by later generations for your lack of interest in even trying to make this world habitable for all species? Is it not better to err on the side of caution?

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 16:46:02 GMT
Spin writes words ...deep with a "primal wisdom"...the fount smiles.,...

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 18:01:24 GMT
Spin says:
Wind-farms, electric cars and recycling; mans attempt to retain the status quo...

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 18:14:50 GMT
Pipkin says:
Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'
The uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story, writes Christopher Booker.
Christopher Booker
6:25PM GMT 28 Mar 2009
150 Comments
If one thing more than any other is used to justify proposals that the world must spend tens of trillions of dollars on combating global warming, it is the belief that we face a disastrous rise in sea levels. The Antarctic and Greenland ice caps will melt, we are told, warming oceans will expand, and the result will be catastrophe.

Although the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only predicts a sea level rise of 59cm (17 inches) by 2100, Al Gore in his Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth went much further, talking of 20 feet, and showing computer graphics of cities such as Shanghai and San Francisco half under water. We all know the graphic showing central London in similar plight. As for tiny island nations such as the Maldives and Tuvalu, as Prince Charles likes to tell us and the Archbishop of Canterbury was again parroting last week, they are due to vanish.

But if there is one scientist who knows more about sea levels than anyone else in the world it is the Swedish geologist and physicist Nils-Axel Mörner, formerly chairman of the INQUA International Commission on Sea Level Change. And the uncompromising verdict of Dr Mörner, who for 35 years has been using every known scientific method to study sea levels all over the globe, is that all this talk about the sea rising is nothing but a colossal scare story.

Despite fluctuations down as well as up, "the sea is not rising," he says. "It hasn't risen in 50 years." If there is any rise this century it will "not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm". And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by
Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.

The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on "going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world".

Related Articles
The Pinzgauer Vector scandal shows there's no shortage of things for our 'bored' MPs to be doing
28 Mar 2009
When running the International Commission on Sea Level Change, he launched a special project on the Maldives, whose leaders have for 20 years been calling for vast sums of international aid to stave off disaster. Six times he and his expert team visited the islands, to confirm that the sea has not risen for half a century. Before announcing his findings, he offered to show the inhabitants a film explaining why they had nothing to worry about. The government refused to let it be shown.

Similarly in Tuvalu, where local leaders have been calling for the inhabitants to be evacuated for 20 years, the sea has if anything dropped in recent decades. The only evidence the scaremongers can cite is based on the fact that extracting groundwater for pineapple growing has allowed seawater to seep in to replace it. Meanwhile, Venice has been sinking rather than the Adriatic rising, says Dr Mörner.

One of his most shocking discoveries was why the IPCC has been able to show sea levels rising by 2.3mm a year. Until 2003, even its own satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend. But suddenly the graph tilted upwards because the IPCC's favoured experts had drawn on the finding of a single tide-gauge in Hong Kong harbour showing a 2.3mm rise. The entire global sea-level projection was then adjusted upwards by a "corrective factor" of 2.3mm, because, as the IPCC scientists admitted, they "needed to show a trend".

When I spoke to Dr Mörner last week, he expressed his continuing dismay at how the IPCC has fed the scare on this crucial issue. When asked to act as an "expert reviewer" on the IPCC's last two reports, he was "astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist: not one". Yet the results of all this "deliberate ignorance" and reliance on rigged computer models have become the most powerful single driver of the entire warmist hysteria.

*For more information, see Dr Mörner on YouTube (Google Mörner, Maldives and YouTube); or read on the net his 2007 EIR interview "Claim that sea level is rising is a total fraud"; or email him - morner@pog.nu - to buy a copy of his booklet 'The Greatest Lie Ever Told'

Fined, frozen and now jailed

The Marine Fisheries Agency was certainly onto a winner when it enlisted the aid of the Assets Recovery Agency in its ruthless war against our fishermen. In December 2007 Charles McBride and his son Charles, from Kilkeel in Northern Ireland, were fined £385,000 for under-declaring catches of whitefish and prawns in the Irish Sea, threatening the loss of their homes and boat. But the Assets Recovery Agency, using powers designed to recover money from drug dealers, also froze all their assets. To pay the fines, the McBrides tried to borrow against their assets. Now, for this effort to pay the fines, Liverpool Crown Court has sentenced the two men to two and three months in gaol for "contempt of court".

Blown away

The Climate Change Secretary, Ed Miliband, timed his jibe impeccably last week when he said that opposing wind farms is as "socially unacceptable" as "not wearing a seatbelt". Britain's largest windfarm companies are pulling out of wind as fast as they can. Despite 100 per cent subsidies, the credit crunch and technical problems spell an end to Gordon Brown's £100 billion dream of meeting our EU target to derive 35 per cent of our electricity from "renewables" by 2020.

Meanwhile the Government gives the go-ahead for three new 1,000 megawatt gas-fired power stations in Wales. Each of them will generate more than the combined average output (700 megawatts) of all the 2,400 wind turbines so far built. The days of the "great wind fantasy" will soon be over.

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 18:17:02 GMT
Spin says:
Our world will change when you decide to change your world.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 18:24:52 GMT
Pipkin says:
No it is not just you...............

http://members.shaw.ca/sch25/FOS/Climate_Change_Science.html

The Science in Summary
The history of the Earth tells us that the climate is always changing; from warm periods when the dinosaurs flourished, to the many ice ages when glaciers covered much of the land. Climate has always changed due to NATURAL cycles without any help from people.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political organization promoting a theory that recent minor temperature increases may be caused largely by man-made carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. CO2 is an infrared gas, and increasing concentrations can potentially increase the average global temperature as the gas absorbs long-wave radiation from the Earth and emits the absorbed energy. However, the warming ability of CO2 is limited because much of the absorption spectrum is near or fully saturated. When CO2 concentrations were ten times greater than today the Earth was in the grips of one of the coldest ice ages. The climate system is dominated by strong negative feedbacks from clouds and water vapour which offsets the warming effects of CO2 emissions.

The history of climate and CO2 concentration shows that temperature changes precede CO2 changes and can not be a significant driver of climate. Temperature changes over different time scales have been well correlated to solar cycles, cosmic ray flux and cloud cover. Recent research shows that cosmic rays act as a catalyst to create low clouds, which cool the planet. When the Sun is more active, the solar wind repels the cosmic rays, reducing low cloud cover allowing the Sun to warm the planet.

Computer model results presented in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report predict that global warming will cause a distinctive temperature profile in the atmosphere of enhanced warming rate in the upper atmosphere at 8 to 12 km altitude over the tropics. The predicted temperature profile is the result of an expected increase in water vapour in the upper atmosphere which would amplify a CO2 induced warming three fold. The computer models are programmed to forecast a constant water vapor relative humidity with increasing CO2 resulting in a large water vapor feedback. Actual temperature data shows no such enhanced warming profile. Therefore, the comparison of observed data to computer models proves that no such water vapour induced warming amplification exists, so CO2 is not the main climate driver. In atmosphere layers near 8 km, the modelled temperature trend from 1980 is 200 to 400% higher than observed. Weather balloon data shows that specific humidity has fallen 9% since 1960 in the upper troposphere (400 mbar pressure level) where the models predict the greatest feedback. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere replaces a significant amount of water vapour, the most important greenhouse gas, resulting in only a small increase of the greenhouse effect.

An analysis of satellite data shows that clouds cause a strong negative feedback on temperature, but climate models assume that clouds cause a positive feedback. Modelers assumed that all cloud changes are caused by temperature changes which results in them inferring a positive feedback. But changing cloud cover can also cause temperature changes. Scientists can now separate these two effects. The correct analysis shows that clouds cause a strong negative feedback, so if temperatures increase, cloud cover increases, reflecting solar energy back to space and greatly reducing the warming effect of CO2 emissions.

Several planets and moons have warmed recently along with the Earth, confirming a natural sun caused warming trend. Over longer time periods, as the solar system moves in and out of the galactic arms the cosmic ray flux changes, causing ice ages and warm ages. A comparison of temperature and solar activity proxy data suggests that solar effects can explain at least 75% of the surface warming during the last 100 years.

CO2 is plant food and the increase in the CO2 concentration may have increased the global food production by 15% since 1950 resulting in huge benefits for people. For Canada, any CO2 warming effect would also benefit us by reducing our space heating costs and making a more pleasant climate.

The IPCC predicts that global average temperatures will increase by 0.17 to 0.38 oC per decade to the end of the century depending on the rate of CO2 growth in the atmosphere and other assumptions. The projections assume that no action is taken to limit CO2 emissions. However, these predictions are unrealistic because they falsely assume that the recent temperature changes are driven solely by CO2 and that the Sun has little effect on climate. A recent study of past climate change used by the IPCC has been shown to be wrong due to the use of a faulty algorithm, and the inappropriate selection of data.

The land temperature record is contaminated by the urban heat island effect. Fully correcting the land temperature record would reduce the warming trend from 1980 to 2002 by half. The IPCC historical CO2 record may be incorrect due to inappropriate adjustments to the ice core data, and ignoring direct historical CO2 measurements. The IPCC selects and adjusts data to conform to its CO2 warming hypothesis and ignores alternative climate theories. This is the wrong way to do science. Many scientists strongly disagree with the IPCC conclusions.

The sea level data shows no increase in the recent rate of sea level rise, and no such increase is expected over the next hundred years. There has been no detected increase in severe storms and there is no reason to expect an increase in the number or intensity of hurricanes resulting from any warming assumed to be from human caused CO2 emissions.

Any increase in temperatures due to human caused CO2 emissions will likely be beneficial to human health. The CO2 fertilization effect will increase the rate of forest growth and CO2 induced crop yield increases will reduce the pressures to cut down forests for farmland expansion. This will greatly benefit animals by slowing habitat destruction.

The benefits of CO2 emissions greatly exceed any likely harmful effects. Several authorities who have studied solar cycles have warned that the Earth may soon enter a cooling phase as the Sun is expected to become less active. The atmosphere may warm because of human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be more than 0.5 C, and probably less, in the next 100 years.

In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2012 18:32:28 GMT
Spin says:
ME: The "benefits of CO2"? Wrap your lips around a car exhaust pipe and report to us on the "benefits"..

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 18:49:51 GMT
Peter Jenner says:
M.E. Phelan, any fool can cut and paste denialist crap from years back, so thanks for nothing. Try using your own words and get up to date.

Posted on 1 Dec 2012 18:52:25 GMT
Spin says:
God created oil. God created petrol. God created cars. God created mechanised fishing. God created toilet paper. God created plastics. No doubt God has a "plan"...
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  223
Initial post:  1 Dec 2012
Latest post:  22 Jan 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions