The truth about the so-called Global Warming

Max X

Max X

Junior Member
The truth about the so-called Global Warming

:)Is there is global warming or not?

There is plenty of scientific evidence from non-government scientist experts in meteorology who assure us that yes there is an increased in temperature all over the world, yet history shows the weather fluctuates, and that it had been much warmed, or unusually cold for long periods of times in past centuries.

There is a time called the Little Ice age where it was extremely cold, and a period of cooling occurring after a warmer era known as the Medieval Warm period. Some confine the Little Ice Age to approximately the 16th century to the mid 19th century.

Scientists are convinced, as I said before, increased output from the Sun is mostly responsible for the global warming that has been measured in the past 20 years.

My point is that there is global warming, yet most of it is caused by extreme changes in the sun, not by human causes. Yet the secret government pretend to charge the population with causing it, (the plan is to create a global environmental tax to enslave you more)

What we are going through now is the result of a natural fluctuation that does not have anything to do with the supposed human generated carbon dioxide. Actually Carbon Dioxide is necessary for the flora, trees breathe it and we inhale oxygen from trees.

There are two excellent DVDs with the truth about GW:

The Great Global Warming Swindle, and
Global Warming? or Global Governance?

After watching those DVDs I am totally convinced the scare of Al Gore and other naysayers is scientifically unsound. The evidence presented by independent scientists from USA, Japan, and Europe definitely proves Al Gore a big liar.
 
Re: The truth about the so-called Global Warming

Here is a short summary of some of the arguments against the so-called "Global Warming" hypothesis.


The basic argument is the fact that temperature levels actually lead CO2 levels by 800 years. So instead of CO2 levels CAUSING global warming, they are actually the effect. This is why Gore doesn't show the two charts super-imposed; because then it would be obvious that CO2 is not the driver of climate change.

There are plenty of reputable scientists who share this view; but Gore acts as if there is no other scientific opinion on this matter. Its also important to know that Gore himself has a vested interest in the "Cap and Trade" system, as it is making him millions and will make him much more as policies are potentially adopted which force the purchase of these offsets.
 

Re: The truth about the so-called Global Warming

I would like to, on an abstract level, address some of the red flags that have kept me from examining your proposal in much detail. I will be examining the finer points though and giving comments on those later.


1. I first became aware of this "no Global Warming" theory on a post involving choice vs fate. It seem to me to be a weak point in the piece. It seemed to say if you close your eyes and smile all will be ok. I replied if you keep your eyes open and smile it could be a lot of fun.​


2. The sense of narration is very strong. One of the clues I look for when determining if a story is true or false on the T.V. program urban legend is; Does this story have a moral? Nearly every urban legend is told to make a point about some middle class value. What is standing out more than any statement about the sun or heat, is a villain with evil intentions. In fact what I am seeing is a concern with motives (plot details) then a concern with mechanics (science details).​


3. The outcome in convenient. What easier way to deal with "An inconvenient truth" than to call it a lie. The basic reaction of any paradigm is to treat all threats against it as lies, evil or insane. This forms a major crux I have with "sceptics", "rationalists", "materialists", and general debunkers; they really aren't being scientific, they rationalize under the cloak of science. I don't particularly put much stock in this point of my argument. For it is a case of arguing by motive. But for those who are persuaded by such arguments. There you have it, "Your case is wrong because you stand to benefit." (That statement is not logical, rational, or scientific.)​


4. Hobbes' skepticism: There is no proof that any statement about our physical environment has to be the way it is. The gravitational constant, attraction and repulsion of electro-magnetic fields, the sky being blue, the grass being green; there is no proof that these things have to be. There could well be universes where these things are different. So the theory of the Sun causing the observed effects of global warming, on a fundamental level, can never be rigoroursly proved. Thus we must fundamentally treat it only as a possible explanation and not something that can be answered with a yes or no. No evidence will provide that 100% confidence.​

In the end, I do not believe either of us will pursuade the other. I do this only to perhaps establish some repore of being willing to engage in debate with you. You seem like a likable and knowledgable person, who is willing to explore ideas off the beaten path. I have respect for such people.​
 

Re: The truth about the so-called Global Warming

We humans are progressing, specialty after 2012, toward using more our hearts and less our heads, then the physical, material evidence becomes irrelevant and even unnecessary.

Can anyone finds evidence of love, of Divine Love? Yet you know love is real because you can feel it and it makes you feel good and happy, consequently any material evidence becomes irrelevant.

Actually if something is not comprehended through the heart, then it has not been really understood.

If we desire to have real freedom and true happiness we must make better use of our feelings, and of our hearts.
 
Re: The truth about the so-called Global Warming

*The Great Global Warming Swindle
created by: Martin Durkin
Original Broadcast
Chanel 4, 8 March, 2007
Running time 74 mins

Assertion:
a multibillion-dollar worldwide industry: created by fanatically anti-industrial environmentalists; supported by scientists peddling scare stories to chase funding; and propped up by complicit politicians and the media

Evidence:

- While carbon dioxide since 1940 to 1975 increased, global temperatures decreased
- Satellite and weather balloon data show surface warming >= low troposphere unlike models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature
- CO2 levels lagged behind temperature increases during glacial terminations
- CO2 increase from temperature increases ( warm climate releases CO2 from oceans)
- CO2 can lag by 800 years because of the large mass of the worlds oceans
- Water vapour makes up 95% of greenhouses gases by reflecting solar heat
- CO2 accounts for 0.054% of Earth atmosphere and human activity much less than 1% of that
the oceans are the biggest cource of CO2 by far
- Solar activity is currently at an extremely high level and is far more influential than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth
- the Medieval Warm period was even more extreme than our current episode of global warming and was a time of great prosperity in western Europe.

Retractions made from the original version (from complaints of falsified data):
C4 accused of falsifying data in documentary on climate change - Media, News - The Independent
- One graph had its time axis relabeled
"We have concerns regarding the use of a graph featured in the documentary titled ‘Temp & Solar Activity 400 Years’. Firstly, we have reason to believe that parts of the graph were made up of fabricated data that were presented as genuine. The inclusion of the artificial data is both misleading and pointless. Secondly, although the narrator commentary during the presentation of the graph is consistent with the conclusions of the paper from which the figure originates, it incorrectly rules out a contribution by anthropogenic greenhouse gases to 20th century global warming."
Friis-Christensen, with environmental Research Fellow Nathan Rive
- the claim that volcanoes produce more CO2 than humans was removed
"A second issue was the claim that human emissions of CO2 are small compared to natural emissions from volcanoes. This is untrue: current annual emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production are estimated to be around 100 times greater than average annual volcanic emissions of CO2. That large volcanoes cannot significantly perturb the CO2 concentration of the atmosphere is apparent from the ice core and atmospheric record of CO2 concentrations, which shows a steady rise during the industrial period, with no unusual changes after large eruptions."
News Story - BAS Statement about Channel 4 programme on Global Warming - British Antarctic Survey
- the interview with Carl Wunsch was removed or the international DVD releases of the program
"In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous—because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."
http://ocean.mit.edu/~cwunsch/papersonline/channel4response

I would hasten to then conclude we are not dealing with a credible source to back your assertion Max X. I am sure the "documentary" must have been persuasive.

It has been endorsed by Steven Milloy of FOX News
FOXNews.com - Must-See Global Warming TV - Opinion

But Steven Milloy also has close ties with Exxon Mobil.
Some Like It Hot | Mother Jones

I am not sure if you would like further detailed review of your sources. I do believe I gave good faith effort on my part to present my reasonable grounds to differ in my perspective from yours.
​
 

Top