Global warming...is it one big fraud??

45 replies
Found 4th Aug 2007
I was entertained by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but can you honestly accept the word of a man beaten to the Whitehouse by George W Bush?? Theres a lot of money to be made by those citing human carbon emissions as the cause of global warming (publicity, grants, advertising etc).
So, are we responsible, or is it a natural phenomenon? Should we act on the words of politicians who are only out to gain votes & pursue popular causes, or is it a case of using common sense? See article below which totally refutes the official line, then consider who stands to gain the most from proliferating this scaremongering. OK, its slightly different, but remember the scaremongering over the Y2K computer crash, the bird flu pandemic, you get the general idea. Who profits?

Article reads:

Daffodils are on sale in some of our shops unseasonably early. Such evidence that spring seems to be arriving before winter has departed, along with excessively hot summer temperatures, has convinced many that global warming is well under way.

Unease that something funny is happening to the weather is reinforced by constant reports claiming imminent environmental doom, such as the article in Nature magazine last week claiming global warming will cause more than one million species to die out over the next fifty years.

In another article in the journal Science the governments Chief Scientific Adviser, Sir David King, claims global warming is an even more serious threat to the world than terrorism. He maintains that the ten hottest years on record started in 1991, that global warming is causing the ice caps to melt and the seas to rise, and that mankinds activities in producing carbon dioxide have been proved to be the cause.

With all due respect to Sir Davids eminence, every one of these claims is utter garbage. What science actually tells us is that we just dont know whether global warming is happening and, if it is, why. Much of the research behind this theory is specious, anti-historical and scientifically illiterate. If the worlds climate is indeed warming up beyond normal patterns, this could be due to natural reasons rather than the actions of mankind.

It is not true that the seas are generally rising. Some are; some arent. The claim is based on the atypical North Atlantic, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. Indeed, around parts of New Zealand and elsewhere they are falling.

Whats more, theres no correlation between rises in climate temperature and sea levels. During the Little Ice Age in the Middle Ages, sea levels rose; and between 1900 and 1940, when temperatures rose, sea levels actually dropped.

The ice-caps tell a similar story. Some are melting; some are not. The Larsen ice shelf in the Antarctic is breaking up, but most of the Antarctic ice is increasing.

Then theres the claim that the climate is now the hottest on record. But this statistical record only goes back a few centuries, if that. Yet theres plenty of other evidence that the climate in Europe was warmer than now by at least 2 degrees in 1100, when vines grew in Northumberland and farmers settled in Greenland. Since this was followed by the Little Ice Age which lasted until about 1880, its hardly surprising - and surely a cause for rejoicing - that since then the climate has warmed up by about 0.6 degrees, well within normal patterns.

As for the presumed villain of the piece carbon dioxide, this makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it doubled it would make little difference to the climate. And like sea levels, it doesnt correlate with climate change. Historically, it has increased hundreds of years after the climate has warmed up. Between 1940 and 1975, when industrial activity - which produces carbon dioxide -rose rapidly, the climate actually cooled.

Far from being proved, the claim of man-made global warming is a global fraud. Instead of being drawn from observable facts, it is based on computer modelling which churns out wholly artificial - and eminently manipulable - visions of the world.

Computers can only process the information fed into them. This is an inadequate procedure, not least because climate change is affected by billions of variables which are beyond any computer programme. The sea level rise, for instance, omits the full influence of certain crucial natural meteorological changes. And if the disaster scenarios of global warming are fed into the computer as a premise, it is hardly surprising that it will then predict the disappearance of species as a consequence.

In other words, if you feed rubbish into a computer, you get rubbish out.

The claim that theres a scientific consensus behind global warming is also utterly bogus. In 1992, more than 40 atmospheric scientists said the theory was highly uncertain and warned against using theoretical climate models which they said were not supported by existing records.

In 1997, dozens of meteorologists, geologists, atmospheric scientists and other experts said global warming was based solely on unproven scientific theories and imperfect computer models.

In 1998, 18,000 scientists signed the Oregon petition which again criticised this flawed research, said historic evidence showed that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide was environmentally helpful, and predicted that the 1997 Kyoto agreement to reduce industrial emissions would keep the developing world trapped in poverty.

One of the worlds most eminent meteorologists, Professor Richard Lindzen, has also protested that while the science behind the Kyoto protocol was suitably equivocal about global warming, the documents highly politicised summary - the part actually being used to force reduced industrial activity onto the western world - was written instead by government representatives, who had conjured up scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

Indeed, global warming has little to do with science and everything to do with politics. Those scientists who endorse the theory command the lions share of government-funded research grants. Since the global warming prediction emerged in the late 1980s, climate science funding has gone through the roof.

Scientists know, however, that they wont get funded unless their research confirms global warming. Too many enormous reputations would go down the plug otherwise; too many political agendas depend on the theory. So global warming has become big business.

This is ironic. For it is yet another variation of left-wing, anti-American, anti-west ideology which goes hand in hand with anti-globalisation and the belief that everything done by the industrialised world is wicked. The agenda to cripple this world is revealed by highly questionable assumptions made by climate modellers about likely developments in economics, technology or population movements, which affect emissions and consequent temperature predictions.

As the Economist recently pointed out, they assume growth rates that are beyond any historical experience, resulting in predictions of a bizarre economic future in which the United States stops growing and developing nations overtake the industrialised world. But that reversal of fortune is, of course, precisely the objective.

And if anyone objects, they are demonised. As Professor Lindzen has protested, science is now being used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens.

Dr Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish statistician who became famous for his book The Sceptical Environmentalist, paid a heavy price for pointing out that richer countries were cleaner countries, and observing that the costs of implementing the Kyoto protocol for less than one year would provide clean water for every human being on Earth.

For his demolition of the environmental scam, he was vilified across the globe and accused by a Danish scientific committee of dishonesty - a disgraceful verdict that has now been demolished by a superior committee that tore into Dr Lomborgs inquisitors for intellectual inadequacy.

The claim of man-made global warming represents the descent of science from the pursuit of truth into politicised propaganda. The fact that it is endorsed by the top scientist in the British government shows how deep this rot has gone.

  1. Misc
Groups
  1. Misc
46 Comments

I know I'll get slated for posting this but I couldn't care less, I'll be dead before it seriously affects me.

I only read half of what you wrote but I get your drift.

I believe we are coming to as they say on Day after tomorrow a climate shift.


Where our seasons will spread out longer or shorter, or even irregular and our weather will get more drastic.

Something is melting the ice in the ice caps. Even if more ice is building, Why is the other ice melting?

I dont use the words global warming because to me it means climate change/shift

Banned

n1ck09

I know I'll get slated for posting this but I couldn't care less, I'll be … I know I'll get slated for posting this but I couldn't care less, I'll be dead before it seriously affects me.



what about your children or your childrens children?

Original Poster

Yes, that is a real concern. But, look at how far we have come in the last 100 years, and just imagine what our children and grandchildren will achieve and see in their lifetimes. I really don't think global warming will be an issue for them, and I'm sure they will have the technology to overcome it. My point is, are we causing it, or is it just some massive scam to get us to spend money conforming to legislation which is based on false information? Unfortunately, low energy lightbulbs don't fit my lampshades. I can't stop volcanoes erupting and trees shedding leaves, creating 100 times more CO2 than mankind does. So, I think its all cobblers!! We produce 1% of naturally occuring carbon emissions, so switching off your lights can reduce that by about 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

Is there global warming - Yes
Are we the cause - No
Can we slow it down - King Canute
Will we end up paying more tax - Yes

melanie789

I was entertained by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but can you … I was entertained by Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth", but can you honestly accept the word of a man beaten to the Whitehouse by George W Bush?? Theres a lot of money to be made by those citing human carbon emissions as the cause of global warming (publicity, grants, advertising etc).So, are we responsible, or is it a natural phenomenon? Should we act on the words of politicians who are only out to gain votes & pursue popular causes, or is it a case of using common sense? See article below which totally refutes the official line, then consider who stands to gain the most from proliferating this scaremongering. OK, its slightly different, but remember the scaremongering over the Y2K computer crash, the bird flu pandemic, you get the general idea. Who profits?




Agree 100%

melanie789

Unfortunately, low energy lightbulbs don't fit my lampshades.



Try the smaller energy efficient bulbs, We've got them in everywhere but the kitchen and bath room (spot lights), But not because we want to be green, To save on electricity costs!!

Banned

Complete bag of *****.

I use energy saving light bulbs, recycle and buy organic food direct from local farm etc which is more than most people do.

But, I believe that there have been natural warming and cooling cycles of the planet long before we got here.

What little this country does to stop the problem doesn't even touch on the problems caused by other countries i.e China etc.

Just one big tax con.

As I say i do things to help and save my own costs (by choice), but everything is is basically a tax scam.

Banned

the taxes are there to discourage you from buying/using products that are bad for the environment and using the cleaner ones, like that 4 star petrol that has lead in it that causes more pollution than the unleaded which is why the leaded one is more expensve due to the tax on it. but I agree it is a bit of a con, they should just make a really big chimney upto earths atmosphere so that all the gases can be released into space.

Banned

hothothot

the taxes are there to discourage you from buying/using products that are … the taxes are there to discourage you from buying/using products that are bad for the environment and using the cleaner ones, like that 4 star petrol that has lead in it that causes more pollution than the unleaded which is why the leaded one is more expensve due to the tax on it. but I agree it is a bit of a con, they should just make a really big chimney upto earths atmosphere so that all the gases can be released into space.



I dont drive and am scared off cars since falling out of one age 4. Cars p me off, people who moan about smoking and drive are my biggest annoyance as that is so hypocritical. I dont do either, but can understand why smokers feel hard done by. Cars are our biggest problem. No ban there I see.

Banned

thats because its essential to some peoples lives their jobs depend on it, I dont think that all the people who work in london also live there which means without cars people are pretty much stuffed

Banned

there was also an artical somewhere comparing public transport prices to the costs of running and buying a car, it found that over the past 25 years or something like that train prices and bus prices have risen whereas the cost of keeping a car has actually fallen

Cars p me off, people who moan about smoking and drive are my biggest … Cars p me off, people who moan about smoking and drive are my biggest annoyance as that is so hypocritical.



Yeah because that's completely the same.

Banned

i dont like it when people smoke and drive at the same time

Prissymiss

I dont drive and am scared off cars since falling out of one age 4. Cars … I dont drive and am scared off cars since falling out of one age 4. Cars p me off, people who moan about smoking and drive are my biggest annoyance as that is so hypocritical. I dont do either, but can understand why smokers feel hard done by. Cars are our biggest problem. No ban there I see.



I don't drive, yet. Thats weird how it scares you, don't mean to thread hijack. I've been hit by a car twice, cycling both times but its due to my carelessness and "not giving a damn attitude".

Personally I don't think its global warming, I think its the earth's cycle, but with increased carbon emissions its adding to the affect of changing climate, rising sea levels. I see that transportation is over used, cars are used for unnecessary journeys, in my eyes, taken for granted laziness. Though I do have mixed opinions on it as people purchase the car, they purchase the right to drive it on the road, insure it and even fill it up with petrol and so it can operate, so I see it as somebody's choice.

I have no side in an arguement like this. Pro's and con's, we could be here for days.

Banned

jamesterror

Pro's and con's, we could be here for days.



exactly

Banned

hothothot

thats because its essential to some peoples lives their jobs depend on … thats because its essential to some peoples lives their jobs depend on it, I dont think that all the people who work in london also live there which means without cars people are pretty much stuffed



Dont Know about you, but round here there are 3/4 cars per household and many I have seen driving their kids off less then a 10 minute walk to the school. Thats a major problem.

There are many off them, my mum lives in the road I am moving to next week which is on the same road as a Senior school. The amount of parents picking their children up there is beyond belief. They are young adults and can easily manage a 10/20 minute walk.

Lazy, thats all it is

hothothot

i dont like it when people smoke and drive at the same time



Me to, I was always taught to do 1 thing at a time, I mean, How are they supposed to enjoy the fag properly if they're driving?

Banned

Prissymiss

Dont Know about you, but round here there are 3/4 cars per household and … Dont Know about you, but round here there are 3/4 cars per household and many I have seen driving their kids off less then a 10 minute walk to the school. Thats a major problem.There are many off them, my mum lives in the road I am moving to next week which is on the same road as a Senior school. The amount of parents picking their children up there is beyond belief. They are young adults and can easily manage a 10/20 minute walk.Lazy, thats all it is



sure its lazy but people live in a world of convenience now, gone are the days where people used to go to 3 different shops to get bread, meat and veg. now people pop into their local supermarket

Banned

As I said, stop worrying about smokers, and worry about the totally wasteful car use.

They should tax highly on families with more than one car in use without good reason.

Wont affect me:whistling:

Banned

hothothot

sure its lazy but people live in a world of convenience now, gone are the … sure its lazy but people live in a world of convenience now, gone are the days where people used to go to 3 different shops to get bread, meat and veg. now people pop into their local supermarket



Still, no excuse to drive a short distance to a school. LAZY

Iom-RF

Me to, I was always taught to do 1 thing at a time, I mean, How are they … Me to, I was always taught to do 1 thing at a time, I mean, How are they supposed to enjoy the fag properly if they're driving?



No idea, discusting habbit. I smoke cigars when I'm drinking but I don't get why people chose to smoke cigarettes, though my dad has smoked for 24 years now, and he explained to me that he grew up in a smoking environment and thats why he finds it hard to quit.

Please don't abuse me on my opinion on smoking, its what I think.

Banned

yeah they should increase the tax on cars which they have during the last budget, but any tax change should be a gradual process, i drive a car to college when i could easily get the train, why dont i get the train? because its actually the same price as driving there, now if trains where cheaper I would probably get the train.

Prissymiss

As I said, stop worrying about smokers, and worry about the totally … As I said, stop worrying about smokers, and worry about the totally wasteful car use.They should tax highly on families with more than one car in use without good reason.Wont affect me:whistling:



Hmmm. Its weird because some families actually need two vehicles, anymore and thats greedy, for commuting. My parents work at least a fifteen - thirty minute drive, I do get a lift to work yes, its a 25 minute walk at 5am in the morning or 5 minute drive. I pay the petrol so it doesn't bother me

Banned

I know a friends child who died because an ambulance couldnt get into the school gate as parents had parked in the way obstructing it for 15 minutes.

Banned

Yes use a car if you need to, I am not argueing with that. But, if you cant walk there in 30 minutes or less, then do so.

Banned

but im lazy because I have become used to driving everywhere

Banned

And before anyone says anything, my mother is registered disabled, and of course if you cant manage the walk then, then you have a valid excuse.

Banned

hothothot

but im lazy because I have become used to driving everywhere



lol

is you fat?

Prissymiss

Yes use a car if you need to, I am not argueing with that. But, if you … Yes use a car if you need to, I am not argueing with that. But, if you cant walk there in 30 minutes or less, then do so.



Yeh I know what you mean, I cycle / walk everywhere. I must cover at least ten miles a day, "I get about". Even if I do have time to spam these forums. The only pollutant thing I use is DW40 on my bike to keep it working even though I killed it yesterday doin about 20 down a hill =/ Not good. But the only time I'll ask for a lift is when its raining, since working in damp clothes is horrible.

Banned

well there are ideas to stop people using cars as much eg tax people per mile, it would make people think twice before driving when they could actually walk.

Banned

Prissymiss

lolis you fat?



nope because I play football :thumbsup:

Banned

Thats why the previous threads ended. No clear case for anything.

Anyway, I walk and am well fit. Nuff said:whistling:

hothothot

nope because I play football :thumbsup:


http://www.channel4.com/4car/media/features/2006/world-cup/03-large/aygo-more-football.jpg

sorry couldn't resist :giggle:

hothothot

nope because I play football :thumbsup:



You could be a fat football player I'm kidding.

I think, global warming is just another excuse for the government to squeeze more money out of people

Banned

stora

sorry couldn't resist :giggle:



I cant see it :-(

Banned

jamesterror

You could be a fat football player I'm kidding.I think, global warming … You could be a fat football player I'm kidding.I think, global warming is just another excuse for the government to squeeze more money out of people



As i said. good on you

Prissymiss

As i said. good on you



It's a natural occurring cycle. We only make up a small part of the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. The rest is done by the Earth itself naturally, so even if humanity stopped, it's still inevitable.

Unless you want to argue that previous extreme climate changes, like the ice ages, were due to those damn Penguins filling the kettle up too much.

jamesterror

No idea, discusting habbit. I smoke cigars when I'm drinking but I don't … No idea, discusting habbit. I smoke cigars when I'm drinking but I don't get why people chose to smoke cigarettes, though my dad has smoked for 24 years now, and he explained to me that he grew up in a smoking environment and thats why he finds it hard to quit. Please don't abuse me on my opinion on smoking, its what I think.



I won't criticise your opinion, Although i'm not sure how you can say smoking is disgusting when you smoke cigars!!!....... :giggle: :giggle:

Cheapie Hamlet cigars or proper Cuban cigars BTW? :?
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text
    Top Discussions
    1. Topcashback Trick or Treat competition66709
    2. Win an unbelievable Windows Mixed Reality prize pack from Windows Central! …43
    3. Win two star gazing festival tickets in the north pennines43
    4. Win a £100 Amazon Voucher From LoveMyVouchers44

    See more discussions