Man-made Global Warming proven to be a hoax

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting interview... (People still use real player??? 1996, that explains it.)

On another note, back on topic, ABC Radio National's counterpoint program just had an interesting discussion referring directly to the issue of politics in science and the need for some peer review reform. I'll try to remember to add some links later.
 


No, it's more than just one university. The corruption extends to Penn State, Arizona State, and other Universities here in the U.S. That is the core of the modelers by which the global warmers get their data that say that the earth is going to burn up if nothing is done, like Al Gore keeps saying. The whole global warming movement is based on those computer models and now these models are shown to be false because of deleted or ignored data that contradicts the whole global warming modeling scheme. So you are way over minimizing this. The whole emphasis of the global warming crowd is basing their claims on these computer models which have been now shown to be wrong, false, untrue.

Currently the climate on the planet IS COOLING. It is not conjecture, it is fact. And the whole projection that the earth is warming is based on a faulty computer models that these universities use. The earth is cooling and that proves their computer models are false. As in WRONG. The whole basis for global warming, as predicted by these computer models, is WRONG. But rather than adjust their models to account for the cooling, adjusting their models according to reality, these "scientists" fudged with the data, adding to the temperature values that is not supported in actual data, adding values made up out of whole cloth, so that their models would be right, so that their personal view would be correct contrary to what actual data and observations were showing. The whole idea of man-made global warming is false because the computer models that they use to predict global warming is wrong, as in UNTRUE, FALSE. So, these scientists are not scientists because real scientists operate on actual data observed. By politicizing their data, they actually become political scientists, politicians, not scientists.

And on top of that, these "scientists" tried to suppress information that did not support their view. And they would not let anyone out of their close knit group see their data. And when a freedom of information act request was made to see their data, they wrote to each other discussing how they were going to hide what they didn't want known about their faulty computer models and faulty research. And these are the people that all the global warming supporters such as Al Gore, and all the other global warming activists claim is the undisputed science. How can faulty computer models and faulty data be undisputed? It's all a lie. there is no other way to put it. Data is either wrong or not. 5 = 5 and not 4 or 3 or 2. They are saying we are seeing 5, but we want it to be 7. So we will change some data so that our data will show 7. That is not science, it's politics. I'd say it's more like you have fallen for the liberal, global warming lie, hook, line, sinker.

We arent' talking about pollution. Pollution is not synonymous with global warming. A piece of paper on the ground is pollution, but is it causing global warming? No. Sure, the air can be cleaner, but dirty air is not synonymous with global warming, it isn't the same. And now we know that CO2 has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth because the models that were claiming that it does have been proven to be wrong.
 
Looks like that big conspiracy that many on the right have been shouting about for the past decade is not so crazy anymore.

Several universities representing several countries all involved with the IPCC. Climatologists falsifying or misleading the data, deleting incriminating information, bullying journalists and editors....all to keep their preconceived ideas (and funding because you know money is involved) intact.

Ever since the idea of Carbon Credits came about, I began to feel something was just not right with the whole thing.
 
Heck, just the idea that a naturally occurring gas, CO2, is a pollutant is enough to make any reasonable person laugh global warming alarmists to scorn. Just think of the logical conclusion. Who, what people, do you want to kill off to reduce the largest living source of CO2, every time these people exhale, on the planet? That is the only logical conclusion.
 
An acre of land will support greenery to its fullest regardless of the maturity of the greenery.
While this changes some things overall, its not a nothing and everything weve been presented.
Grasses, smaller plants etc, does most of what a mature forest will do for the atmosphere, but, have we seen such comparisons? Are they fairly represented?
Like I said, be it bufflao or cows, theyve been here from the beginning, nothings changed but the way some are trying to make it look
 



I don't know what your point is. But, taking a guess, if you are saying deforestation is destroying the planet and causing global warming, it's the United States who is at the forefront of managing the forests and the countries that are the poorest do the worst at managing their forests. Yet for some reason, anti-global warming proposals always is aimed at the United States, the best manager and best maintainer of it's forests. So, if your point is deforestation has something to do with global warming, it's poorly made.
 
The greater immediate impact of deforestation is the animal impact, not the atmosphere.
Yes, theres also soil impact as well, but things grow the second other things are removed.
Sunlight patterns, water availability etc all change, allowing for a more diverse growth.
Am I saying its right? No? Just pointing out things some may not have in their zealousness of their agenda.
Does it need to be managed? Yes. It doesnt stop the earth/siol from being fertile, it just changes what grows there.
Its always easier to say not in my backyard, when your backyard already is built to your own desires.
Altering the worlds temps is a much harder thing to do.
The mini ice age were just now getting out of, only our theories can explain as to how it all started. Now, were just going to have to believe these same people as to how the Earth is warming and why?
If they cant pinpoint the reasons for a well documented event in mans history, how can they then project the future?
While theres been good things coming out of our exploration of the Earths temps, and its ecosystem, shouting alarm isnt something privy to what we actually know, or what weve actually are just beginning to understand.
No knee jerk reactions, but an honest and open interpretation is whats always required when trying to understand the unknown, and I repeat open
 
I think the world could end if we keep polluting, if the oxygen levels keep dropping and the carbon dioxide keeps going up as well as carbon monoxide, it could kill many lives but that would be in a very very long time from now
 
Oxygen is replenished by millions of blades of grass as easily as a few giant old growth trees.
In alot of instances, old growth trees arent the best solution for oxygen or carbon elimination.
Theres a balance, and it needs to be managed, as we learn more and more about it, just as we used to stop all man made fires as well as any others, simply to protect old growth etc.
Weve learned since that without those fires, certain parts of the ecosystem doesnt grow, which is vital to old growth.
We used to clear the forest floor, to prevent fires, which introduced other undersirable plants and inhibited old growth. Were learning, and to say the world is ending when we know so little is quite a misjustice, especially to those who are trying to further research, and dont admit we know it all, and everything must change
 


The world ends (for me) when I close my eyes for the last time, breathe my last breath, and think my last thought.

Oh yeah, the link I promised. Prof. Aynsley Kellow from the Tasmania Uni...

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/

No transcript, unfortunately.
 
A few trees, wtf are you on about jaydee, we are not talking about a few old trees, we're talking about devastating regions larger than my damn country for crying out loud.

This has nothing to do with the earth's temperatues, it is to do with the rate of change, barring something major occuring naturally which we have missed and are still missing, there is no reason for such rapid changes that have and are being witnessed.

This is not something we can wait to play out here, right or wrong, we need to take action now so at least we can be proven wrong. If people who prefer to wait for proof are listened to, many people may not be around to see who is right or wrong.

Some people's lives are being turned upside down by this stuff.
 
OK, go in and use the UKs military and make them change their laws.
My few trees were only about a described area, as was my millions "only" of grass blades, not trillions, as you described.
So, take over those countries, go ahead, next, the UK will be known as baby killers.
Make their laws your laws.
Im not saying its right whats happening, what I am saying is, nature doesnt end when the trees are cut down, nor does natures benefits. Thats all.
No advocating going on, but trying for a better, deeper understanding, and not the "oh noes. all is lost" attitudes weve been given by the same group of people that simply wont allow for another thought if it doesnt match theirs.
Im betting Ive done more personally to save the trees than you ever have, and no, Im not bragging, just trying to show you that its a concern for me as well.
I helped form a commitee to save the last county park in the county in which I lived, went down to the county commissioners, called in a few people, and we got it done.
The loggers previously had free reign as to cutting any old growth red pine they deemed worthy of bidding on, and land management wasnt eco friendly in our eyes.
If you think nature is so weak, then why does it always come back? Why do we see life in the most hottest of areas? The coldest? The force of nature is greater than the force of man.
I understand peoples concerns, but where are the concerns about the people calling the alarm itself? Wheres their credibility? They cant explain the mini ice age, yet they can explain mans devestation of the entire planets future? They have models of the mini ice age also, and theyre still not sure how and why it happened, so now, youre just going to lend over to these people about the very livelyhood of millions of people in poorer regions?
And how do they propose us to do this?
By spreading our wealth to them?
Teach a man to fish first may be very appropo here wouldnt you agree?
 
Tropical rain forests produce about 15% of our oxygen supply (phytoplankton alone accounts for about 50%) and it's long been known that major deforestation levels vs new forestation is at parity for almost 50 years now.

I'm not suggesting we stop efforts to reduce deforestation but we shouldn't make hasty decisions based on poor data (or politicized and falsified data for that matter).
 



Who is practicing deforestation the most? Is it the United States. It isn't is it? You don't realize that? According to the U.S. Forest Service, the amount of forest land has remained stable, as in it is not decreasing significantly. See:

http://fia.fs.fed.us/library/briefings-summaries-overviews/docs/ForestFactsMetric.pdf


This proves that Deforestation, like you so ignorantly claim, has little to do with the United States. If deforestation has so little to do with the United States, why is it that all the global warming activists want to develop restrictions mainly one country, the United States. It cannot be due to deforestation since the United States is not involved in significant deforestation as you claim. So that must mean deforestation does NOT figure so prominently as you claim and your point is WRONG. Yet, you, who believe is so in tune with the big picture, can't see that and you aren't so smart as you imagine yourself to be.

However, my statement, that your first foul-mouthed response responded to, is much more far-sighted than your ignorant statement about deforestation because global warming activists have ALREADY said that the world's population needed to be reduced. I knew they were going to say that and forecasted it before on this forum on another subject. And sure enough, they said it. Andrew Revkin, a New York Times reporter, and other global warming activists, are proposing laws to limit family size. But what if it is as the global warming activists believe that that isn't enough and there are still too many people. It isn't a very far leap to say that the number of people need to be reduced.

I don't know why I'm explaining this to you, you who has such far-sighted vision should be able to see this without my telling you this. But I'll continue and maybe your far-sighted vision will start working again.

Anyway, what if the earth keeps warming like the global warming activists believe it is, even when it isn't, after they have tried all the things they want to try all the prescriptions as described in the Kyoto Protocol, having destroyed the worlds economy, they can easily say that in order to save the planet, which is what they believe, that they can save the planet, that the population must be thinned to save the earth and humanity. People have killed for less. What could be more important than saving the planet? It's a religion to them, and apparently to you too. Their religion dictates that they believe that they can save a planet, regardless of the facts that say that it doesn't need to be saving. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung all did it for less. So, I have the farsighted vision based on logical conclusion, that you cannot see apparently.

 
Tropical rainforsests are not being replanted or regrowing as quickly as they are being cut down last time I checked.

Also, redraider, where do you think the demand for all this wood is? In the poor countries that do the logging or us, the rich countries who want fancy wood for items?

I don't care if it only produced 1% of the earth's oxygen, it is still to important to miss, the earth needs balancing. Also, considering how much of the rain forests have been cut down, what has replaced the oxygen supply that they previously put out, it probably was double what it was at one point so who has picked up the slack?

Also, seeing as trees do lock away co2 and clearing them and the methods of doing so release the carbon right back into the atmophere with no ability to recapture it.

Wood is a natural resource, however everything needs to be done in moderation and sustainable actions need enforcing, we the so called developed world pull the strings in almost all polluting activities and can reduce them at will, costly but still possible. So that just means there really is not the will to do so.

I err on the side of caution on these matters only because people usually show bias in the results and I will always side with the doom and gloom rather than the rose tinted glasses as the world rarely exists in the latter and almost certainly exists in the former.
 


I disagree that the demand in the U.S. is the primary cause of deforestation. The primary cause of deforestation is the local people clearing land for grazing and farming.

In any case, this has nothing to do with the theory of global warming being debunked by these emails from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. How much CO2 is in the air is irrelevant because the computer models that were being used that showed CO2 as the cause of global warming at these universities promoting global warming have now been shown to be wrong. There is no global warming. The data that they were using is cooked to show there is when there isn't. The data has been corrupted by these "scientists" so they can continue to claim that man-induced/produced CO2 is destroying the planet by causing a greenhouse effect. So CO2 is completely irrelevant.
 
I have got some news for all you tree huggers. We are not destroying the Earth. If ANYTHING we will destroy our selves but in time the earth WILL heal and there will be life on it, just not human life.

As for climate change. It is cyclical. The highest recorded CO2 levels happened MILLIONS of years before we were even on this planet, So I guess cool T-rex was cruising in his SUV with 22' wheels spewing out CO2?

One major volcanic eruption (never mind an interstellar collision) will spew more sulfur, CO2 and other far worse particles into the atmosphere then 1000 years of EVERYONE driving a non cat SUV every second of the day... Are we going to plug the volcanoes next?

We could not destroy the Earth if we tried. If we blew up every nuke and killed all human life the Earth would still be here and given time would heal, absorb the radiation, CO2 etc. and life would return or come out of hiding.



Edit: And I also hope I am still around in 60 years to see the return of the cold cycle to this planet! I hope Al Gore is alive as well.

Silly Humans, when are you going to realize you are NOT the end all be all of the universe, your lives are an insignificant little dot of sand on a beach that no would would miss if it were gone.
 


Exactly right Bleet. The same people who believe we can destroy the earth believe in evolution and under the theory of evolution, we are just another animal on the planet. In fact, the global warmers ought to be glad if we got wiped off of the planet because according to them, we are the worst and most damaging animal on the planet. They want it both ways. They lament so woefully that people will be killed like people have value, then they turn around and say human beings are just aweful, and evil and are destroying the earth. They are not far from believing what Mr. Smith said in The Matrix that humanity is a virus to this planet and needs to be expunged. They want it both ways but you can't have it both ways. Either human beings are worth saving, or they are the worst creature on the earth. Which is it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom