Climate change: fact, fiction, or exaggeration?

Arnold doesn't need Copenhagen to follow UN Agenda 21 and establish CA as the global leader with CalAdapt.. google it.. Google is a BIG part

This isn't so much about science as it is common sense. I've been arguing this stuff with EnVIronmentaLists for years. They always resort to dizzying "science" and excuse reality.

Use your gut instincts.

The first question you should ask yourself. "Who (what) is the source of information promoting gloBULL warming?"

Do you trust them or the ones telling you otherwise?

The second is, "have you seen any sea levels rising or weather really changing?"

Then ask yourself, "why is the media doing coverups on climategate, why won't Al Gore or any of the lead scientist publically debate the other side?" The offer to public T.V. debate has been made on MANY occassions and they ALWAYS turn em down.

Carbon credits? COMMON. AGENDA to hurt industry and make money that's all.

There's a lot of things to debunk this stuff, just observe.

theory? And where is the evidence? Has anyone even done experiments to demonstrate that air with more co2 actually holds in heat as compared to air with less co2?

All I have seen is some correlation between earth temperature and co2 in the atmosphere which does not prove cause and effect. Maybe it is co2 increase in the atmosphere that is caused by higher temperatures, driven by long term variations in solar activity. And now we hear that even the data on temperature history is in question.

I think that politicians will latch on to anything they perceive as a problem as an excuse to further what politicians do, i;e., PLUNDER and CONTROL. The reality is that whatever the damage or benefit from future weather, the damage that politicians will do is far greater than the possible problem could possibly cause.

Did you notice the DRUDGE headline stories, "1,000 limos - 140 private planes, spew more co2 than 60 countries combined."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-c...

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/warm_and_fuzzy_fa...

What a bunch of con men are these fellows?

one page link with the analysis
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

And you'll have your answer.
It's water vapor that rules the greenhouse, and man-made CO2 is basically a non-factor.

When the computer models that climate change 'scientists' tout successfully predict LAST week's weather then I will give it some thought. If man is responsible for climate change, then where were the industries & suvs when dinosaurs roamed the earth during higher temps than today. Computers are great, but garbage in, garbage out. Follow the money!

Yahoo has an article today exclaiming that this is the hottest decade in HISTORY! Unfortunately the history of recorded temperature isn't that long. It's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that there have been much warmer times in the past but yet those facts are ignored....simply because they can throw in "recorded history" and the dumb asses out there think there's a little weather man who's been recording temperatures, on his computer no less, for the past several thousand years.

The fact is that the North route has been wide open in the past and temperatures have been much warmer, but where was all that damned CO2 that must have been caused by humans? Either there's billions of tons of hidden machinery somewhere, or this is a loaded subject. There is global warming and cooling, and it isn't directed by the hands nor the ignorance of man.

of ALL gasses in atmosphere.

oceans = biggest continuous emission of CO2

its a mutually satisfying relationship:

flora (plants, trees, etc) inhale-need and love CO2
flora then, exhales OXYGEN.

fauna (you, me, all living creatures) inhale OXYGEN
fauna then, exhales CO2.

First off let me assure you that the scientists who are actually concerned about the data and its implications are nothing like the hysterical leftists who you would usually associate with global warming advocacy. These people are generally just as, if not more, ignorant about the scientific aspects then the "polluters" they are so concerned about. They basically strike me as our generation's version of the stereotypical useless hippie.

The reason that I believe it is merely an exaggeration is that certain aspects of the data appear to me to have scientific merit. The experiments that specifically come to mind involve those where they have drilled the arctic cores and found that for at least the last 650,000 years, there has been a generally stable relationship between the carbon cycle and temperatures. This coupled with the idea that CO2 output has reached a never-before-seen-in-history level within our atmosphere leads me to the conclusion that it could be sensible to see some higher temperatures as our lives progress.

The main data which conflicts this hypothesis is the fact that global temperatures over the past 100 years have in fact not at all showed to follow a normal, upwards curve. There have been numerous years with random spikes in temperatures, and it appears that temperatures have been decreasing ever so slightly for the past decade or so. I thus have absolutely no reason to believe that any of the ridiculous claims about the ocean level rising 20 feet and drowning everybody and so on are anything other than fearmongering.

I believe that the phony environmental movement and the left in general found this to be useful issue because it allows them to share a big collective belly chuckle about the "deniers", who they see as being basically the stupidest, most selfish people in existence. This is an issue that allows them to feel an air of moral superiority and lets them bond over the mutual hatred for famous people such as GWB, who seemed to have absolutely no interest in pandering to the environmentalists. The greatest part about it is that they only had to memorize a few of their favorite slides from folk hero and notorious con-artist algore rather than look very deeply into understanding the issue. Because you have one side which is basically going to ignore the issue completely and will deny anything you say out of hand, they never really had to put that much work into looking for the truth.

The way that I see environmentalism as affecting my life in general is that i agree with the notion in general that there is no good reason to waste resources or to litter unnecessarily. As a result, i recycle a fair amount of my waste products and you do not see me going around making aerosol can jetpacks. However, that is as far as i take it because i really just don't believe humans are that big of a threat to the planet, which has much worse natural phenomena to deal with. This is simply another issue, like supporting the minimum wage or social security, that bleeding hearts use to help themselves go to sleep at night with an arrogant smile on their faces without really looking that deep into the scientific or social aspects of what they are saying.

My recommendation to the layperson is to ignore this one. If the global warming people exaggerations turn out to be correct, then it is probably too late for you personally to do anything anyway, so enjoy the view as you go down with the sinking ship. However, if they turn out not to be correct, as i presume will occur, then you won't have worked yourself into a frenzy over nothing anyway. If you take a total denier position, you can be seen as an "extremist", so if one of the global warming people comes up to you at a party, just be nice and tell them you are thrilled with their desire to help humanity, then walk away and go hang out with somebody more interesting.

p.s. you may immediately disregard anything that comes out of the IPCC, the intergovernmental panel on climate change. This is a government propaganda group which was created to advocate a conclusion which they pre-assume to be true. They are not involved in research and do not even come close to expressing the consensus of all scientists. You may look at them as a body created by the government which receives subsidies and nice salaries in order to meet the objective of finding new ways to justify giving regulatory power over all industries to the government.

Come on. Some of the stuff we do HAS to be causing SOME damage...but its clear that this is being blown out of proportion in order to tax the FAWK out of the little people for their own gain. We cant stop recycling, car-pooling etc and just throw the baby out with the bathwater. We still need to eat from the oceans and streams- but these emails were a jackpot to help keep the whole "global warming" movement in check.

I cant help but be reminded of a certain King Knute ( also from Sweden/Denmark in mediaeval times-) who tried( without any conference there, ) to hold back the tide by standing on the sea shore and commanding the sea not to wet his feet.
However, though I realize it is a given that the LINK between climate change and a global taxation system to fund the new wannabee masters and their Malthusian Governments is a fraudulent pretext, they ARE using a part -TRUTH to rationalize their programme. Its very clever.
There IS climate change- natural probably ,but nevertheless could have devastating consequences ( as well as beneficial ones) which DO need to be addressed- eg Bangladesh flooding. Resistance against the one is confused with the real need to deal with the other. The REAL deception is to make out they are one and the same- cause need and solution. We mustn't throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.
The difficuly with the concocted link is that anyone who objects to the entire programme is made to feel morally inept- I guess that is the reason they are using this 'totally justifiable' pretext in the first place. Who would dare naysay the 'facts' of global pollution. EVERONE knows that..... I dare anyone to put a 'but' in.
Once you have agreed on the first assumption in an argument the logic flows from that. Here it is MAN is the villain/man can change it/man must pay- well some men. You and me but not 'they'. We do need to challenge the assumptions- the science and logic. Once accepted on their terms it is a very straight line to the conclusion you want- in science and in logic.

is that there are good scientists on both sides of the debate. For myself, I believe that the sun has the most bearing on atmospheric changes and AGW is vastly over-hyped.

It answered all of my questions. Answer: exaggerated fiction.

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/117257

the climate is changing, it has been since the dawn of time. CO2 has nothing to do with it and by the way, we are in a cooling trend. It's the sun, remember that big million degree ball of fire in the sky? It fluctuates along with our axis tilt, magnetic shifts, ocean currents etc. Big corrupt corporate entities that would like to control the entire planet have deceived the masses for their power and financial gain, end of story.

He'll give you just the facts.

FICTION... its BS.. seeing the idiots who are behind it how can you believe it?

A prudent man foresees the difficulties ahead and prepares for them; the simpleton goes blindly on and suffers the consequences. Proverbs 22:3
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to
send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword.