When global warming is outed as a fraud, will you feel stupid for publicly supporting it?

30 ⤊

When global warming is outed as a fraud, will you feel stupid for publicly supporting it?

Will you feel a little like chicken little? Will you be afraid to assert an opinion about something to your friends because you looked like such a fool on this one?

Facts, the Sun is warming and cooling the earth, it is normal. CO2 increases after the earth warms, not before, therefore humans use of energy cannot be the cause of the current warming. The IPCC reports are written by politicians, not scientists. The reports disregard the facts because they do not support the political agenda. Politicians lie for a variety of reasons. Scientists in academia will lie on studies to gain financial support for their work.

If you have even the slightest of an open mind watch the Great Global Warming Swindle? Excellent production, full of real scientists, in that field of study, who actually worked on the original IPCC panel who all say this hysteria is a crock.
Now if you run around telling friends about the IPCC you should listen to the scientists as well as reading the report.

2007-03-31 06:34:12 · 31 answers · asked by rmagedon 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government

So far we have no one to dispute the facts, nor has anyone seen the program, it appears that all you have to support your position is propaganda, which is not very scientific......and yes we should reduce our reliance on foreign oil by producing more of our own, open up areas to exploration and production, reduce the taxes on fuel and spend the money to help companies develop more COST EFFICIENT means of energy, not tax ourselves to death or give government any more control over our lives.

2007-03-31 06:44:53 · update #1

Soulful Kris – even if it is cyclical, we can’t do anything about it, so enjoy the remainder of your days.

JR – your mind is so closed, don’t know your age, but what a waste. Go watch the documentary with an open mind, these are the guys the IPCC were supposedly following when they wrote their Oh My God we are all gonna die LIES

Outofthisworld – you are correct, there is the warming of the ocean which increases the water vapor, the #1 greenhouse gas, and then a myriad of others before you finally get to emissions, which is not even a nit, on a ticks back compared to even one of the others, in other words emissions is not relevant to the issue. But of course since you watched the documentary you know that already, as well as the fact that CO2 follows not leads warming cycles, the inconvenient LIE.

2007-03-31 10:38:06 · update #2

2007-03-31 10:43:03 · update #3

Gringo – good points, I watch the weather daily and they are always wrong.

To ALL – if you want to make global rules, laws and taxes I want to move to another planet as I do not want to live in a totalitarian society, even if you do, I want to live free from government oppression.

For those who refuse to watch the program or want to, go to bitcomet.com, download their stuff, go to isohunt.com search for the program and get it, if you have any part of an open mind on this you will switch after seeing it, I guarantee, even if I do get two cents for every view (just kidding, my names not gore)

2007-03-31 10:47:44 · update #4

2007-03-31 10:48:12 · update #5

2007-03-31 10:48:38 · update #6

2007-03-31 10:48:41 · update #7

2007-03-31 10:49:24 · update #8

2007-03-31 10:49:25 · update #9

2007-03-31 10:50:14 · update #10

My profuse apologies for the redundant redundancies, I am on a boat using a 5kbs wireless connection (caribserve.net don't use it) and it seems to want to repeat five times each edit, so I will apologize for posting this apology five times. HAVE A NICE DAY

2007-03-31 11:08:32 · update #11

31 answers

I don't actually need a scientist to know this whole theory is snake oil.

First, the population of the earth is not that large. If you packed us all together at the density of New Delhi or Los Angeles, we'd fit into New Jersey. Our capacity to have an effect on the planet simply isn't that large, including our sudden absence.

Second, CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. CO2 makes up about 3% of the total greenhouse gases. This is why none of the models presented "proving" dire consequences for failure to .... uh.... do whatever they want done.... none of these models can be fed historical data and successfully predict what we already know happened.

Oh yeah, rising seas.... when letters to Key Largo come back marked "Return to sender, no such location", I'll take another look.

Hey, here's a question. If global warming is so certain to happen, and would obviously cause rising seas, why aren't you protesting the stupidity of spending money to rebuild New Orleans, which is already below sea level?

2007-03-31 06:45:08 · answer #1 · answered by open4one 7 · 10⤊ 2⤋

But Al Gore making a movie about it means it must be true, right?

The truth is that the world is getting warmer but it is also the truth that, just like everything else in nature, the Earth's temperature is cyclical. It has been warming up and then cooling off pretty much since the planet formed and will continue to do so regardless of anything we humans do. What we are wittnessing now is the ending of the most recent Ice Age and the planet has been progressively warming pretty much throughout human history; only differance is that only now have people taken notice and politicians realized they could use it to further their careers.

As for the catastrophic effects of the "rapidly rising temperature" this past winter has been one of the coldest I can remeber in a long while. As for Katrina being "caused" by global warming, the hurricane of 1900 in Galveston was just as powerful and more dangerous in terms of lives lost. They call those "100 year storms" because one tends to come along every 100 years (2005-1900=105yrs) not becuase the Earth has suddenly been heating up in the past 100 years and now there will be more Katrinas.

The sky has been falling pretty much throughout human history, right now its global warming, I wonder what it will be next.

2007-03-31 06:56:20 · answer #2 · answered by Ryan F 5 · 6⤊ 1⤋

It's not a matter of whether global warming is happening. The argument is over why and what to do about it.

I go with the solar radiation explanation. I think that the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions [and reducing dependency on oil] is OK. But as for men spraying the atmosphere with some particulate substance to change heating, I think that is REALLY asking for trouble.

By the way, how are you going to get nations like China, for instance, to reduce emissions?

2007-03-31 07:05:39 · answer #3 · answered by Delray 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋

You don't know much about global warming do you?

If you did you'd know that changes in solar variation have accounted for a mere 0.3 Watts per metre squared per year over the course of the last 250 years, that's a change of about 1/4500 of the solar output (1366W/m2/yr). You'd also know that solar variation warms the earth by 0.0005 degrees C per year (at most) and that it's currently warming by 0.00156 C per year - 31.2 times the normal rate.

Even when temperatures peaked during the Medieval Warm Period (which incidentally was NOT warmer than it is now contrary to the myths put about by the skeptics) the global temperature rise that led to this warm period was 0.4 degrees over 1000 years - the same as we've seen in the last 25 years.

CO2 and warming are feedback effects - it makes no difference which comes first as one leads to the other. If CO2 levels are at their natural level then warming is going to occur first, if something happens that suddenlt increases CO2 levels then warming will occur second.

Quite where you get the idea that the IPCC report was written by politicians I have no idea. I personally know contributors to the report and they're definitely not politicians, unless astrophysicists, climatologists and geologists are now classed as politicians.

Very few of the scientists make any money by studying global warming as opposed to studying anything else. They get paid a salary regardless as to what they're studying.

As for the Great Global Warming Swindle - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The producer was Martin Durkin, that in itself should have sounded alarm bells. It was broadcast on UK network station Channel 4 which should have aroused even more suspicions. This is the same channel that gave is Martians on Earth, George W Bush is dead and several end of world scenarios. In a move that smacks of extreme hypocrisy, that same evening (March 8th) they broadcast a programme proving that global warming was real.

Durkin is known to be controversial, he's an outspoken revolutionary communist, Channel 4 have had to publicly apologise for him, he's been the subject of God knows how many enquiries. He even describes his own programme as 'irresponsible journalism'.

The scientists featured are taking legal action against the programme, Durkin has already received a judgement against him for 'selective editing', he's admitted the graphs used were created specifically for the programme and he knowingly used discredited evidence.

Citations for every statement above can be found on my website... http://profend.com/global-warming/pages/myths.html

2007-03-31 11:09:20 · answer #4 · answered by Trevor 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋

It is true what you say, rmagedon. But there is never just one reason, cause, etc. to a problem. Part of it is caused by the fossil fuels we burn for everyday use, particularly for vehicle use. As with any political or religious force there are the extremists with the sole intention, seemingly, to gather as many advocates for their cause, among other things. Which to say I understand the thought of where you come from. But don't presume that all scientists AND politicians are interested only in the finances and/or their political agenda. As long as somebody is willing to broaden their horizons during a happening, like taking a scientific study for example, with the intention of being as objective as possible, the results inclination tends to show just what really is going on among all of the findings. But that is just one of the umpteenth ideas and processes that consist of an ideal scientific study, you could say.

2007-03-31 09:43:17 · answer #5 · answered by outofthisworldfrog 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋

When a Liberal put's the Sun out...I'll be a believer in this crap.Same with all the Carbon Offset Credits. The BIGGEST BUNKO scheme to ever be perpetuated on the American public.

And, who help start it? The same guy that says he invented the internet. Mr. Al Gore. Now there's a believable person.$30,000.00 Electric Bills and he Buys Carbon Offset Credits. Yes sir, that really makes him feel good.

Hey Libs, did you know that when Al Gore buys his Carbon Offset Credits, He's buying them from himself??? His company!!! Did you know he will sell you a carbon offset for your cat??? Or, your fartin' granny??? $6 bucks for the cat and 10 bucks for ole granny...

Go to Terra Pass. Com. Do you really want to see what all this junk is about. Go ahead. Pay them a few hundred bucks a year for your car, home. They will send you a light bulb and a sticker and plant a tree seed.

Now the above should cost all of 3 bucks. And, what's left, their laughing at your stupid A** all the way to the bank. Lib's, you really do need some offsets!

2007-03-31 07:18:14 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋

Twas an interesting documentary, and as scientists can't predict the climate more than a few days in advance, I am sceptical.

I am sure however than our leaders would want to save what remains of the planets resources for their wars and extravigances, whilst at the same time, instructing the rest of us, to be content with having less.

2007-03-31 07:05:54 · answer #7 · answered by Ringo G. 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋

i feel bad for you. not in a sarcastic belittling kind of way, but in a sincere, caring way. first of all the statement you made "CO2 increases after the earth warms, not before" doesn't make sense. the earth is warming because of increased CO2 which emits the radiation from the sun. essentially keeping the radiation in the atmosphere longer. CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas, many are produced naturally, but are in abundance because of humans. factory farms which have hundred of head of cattle produce methane gas from manure and dead animals. deforestation causes an increase in CO2 because less amount of trees are able to convert CO2 back into O2. all in all global warming is happening. increase in greenhouse gas levels have been documented since the late 1890's. i feel that the issue isn't just about global warming, but a more self-conscious awareness of the environmental impact that humans have had since we became so industrial. including nuclear weapons, oil spills, fertilizer runoff from farmers' fields, and the introduction of invasive species to certain areas... to name a few. please, please inform yourself before you speak publicly again. if you are truly informed about both sides of this issue then and only then can you confidently make such a statement. that is if you have the slightest of an open mind.

2007-03-31 14:40:39 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋

I absolutely love the article that Ann Coulter wrote about global warming... http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=175 I'm quoting just part of her article here:

No matter how much liberals try to dress up their nutty superstitions about global warming as "science," which only six-fingered lunatics could doubt, scratch a global warming "scientist" and you get a religious fanatic.

Further proving that liberalism is a religion, its practitioners respond with the zeal of Torquemada to any dissent from the faith in global warming.

A few years ago, Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote a book titled "The Skeptical Environmentalist," disputing the hysteria surrounding global warming and other environmentalist scares. Lomborg is a Greenpeace anti-war protester — or, as he is described on liberal Web sites, he is a "young, gay vegetarian Dane with tight T-shirts." His book was cited favorably in The New York Times.

But for questioning the "science" behind global warming, Lomborg was brought up on charges of "scientific misconduct" by Denmark's Inquisition Court, called the "Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation." I take it Denmark's Ministry of Truth was booked solid that day.

The moment anyone diverges from official church doctrine on global warming, he is threatened with destruction. Heretics would be burnt at the stake if liberals could figure out how to do it in a "carbon neutral" way.

Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball is featured in the new documentary debunking global warming, titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." For this heresy, Ball has received hate mail with such messages as, "If you continue to speak out, you won't live to see further global warming."

If this is how global warming devotees defend their scientific theory, it may be a few tweaks short of a scientific theory. Scientific facts are not subject to liberal bullying — which, by the way, is precisely why liberals hate science.

That's how a real scientific theory operates. That's even how a real religion operates. Only a false religion needs hate mail, threats, courts of inquisition and Hollywood movies to sustain it.

2007-03-31 06:46:28 · answer #9 · answered by bwlobo 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋

i hope you are joking. I am waiting for the documentary that can objectively and scientifically refute the data shown in an Inconvenient Truth. Why would these scientists lie? They have no incentive one way or the other. I think its marketing from big oil and industry who is brainwashing you to disbelieve global warming...they dont want you to stop driving a hummer. so sad.

2007-03-31 08:52:14 · answer #10 · answered by JR 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋