0 votes

Global Warming scam in 10 minutes

Just follow the money, make this go viral!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-_7s7H6edw



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
SteveMT's picture

The last global ice age ended 150k years ago. Explain that?

There must have been a lot of fire-making by us homo sapiens by then. Whatever warmed things up back then is the reason why things are warming up now, if they indeed are. These "scientists" are fudging data right and left, so who knows. If we look up tomorrow, we'll see the answer. It is called the sun.

There are multiple causes of

There are multiple causes of temperature change on a global scale, but we've ruled out pretty much all natural causes, the sun, axis tilt, el nino/la nina, volcano,...etc.

THAT is why scientists believe it's caused by CO2. Not without some basis.

Find me ONE person who thinks CO2 & man are the only and always cause of global warming (or else you're making a dishonest strawman)

that's exactly what the video

that's exactly what the video addressed, somehow the argument of "he makes money so he can't be believed" doesn't work when it's something YOU believe in

SteveMT's picture

Thomas, Chicago Climate Exchange "Closes in Silence"

What a way to end this thread also, with a moment of silence.
Where is Sara Palin with that lipstick on a pig joke.

I'm Just So Tired Of These Brain Dead People...We Need More CO2

http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php?extend.55

"Our current atmospheric CO2 levels is about 380ppm, millions of years ago when plant and animal life was far more abundant and diverse than it is today CO2 levels were as high as 7,000 ppm!"

I think I'm going to start a after midnight bonfire in honor of BKVs lack of coherence and reasoning capability's...

blech..

his arguments were so weak. Comparing it to the holocaust????? Really????

'Peace is a powerful message.' Ron Paul

the point was, just because I

the point was, just because I don't want to pay for A, doesn't mean A is a scam.

this is a video supporting

this is a video supporting the global warming myth?

the guy in this video has a terible argument and looks like he's living in Berkly, "Big oil"

haha, this guy needs to FOLLOW the money for real, Big oil is making out on the global warming scam too, currently oil has very thin margines, we only pay a lot due to tax.

“One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” Plato

what evidence have you that

what evidence have you that big oil is making out on global warming?

please cite something other than "exxon mobil chief prefers carbon tax"

SameCoin owns you BKV

Solar output from our sun controls the temperature on this planet, Man Made global warming is arrogant of man to say the least. Is our CO2 production and SUV's and industry causing global warming on Jupiter, Mars, Venus..etc??

Nice claim to science there BKV

Climate-gate is very real, and from that simple point of view yes it's all about the money. Money=Power=Control.

If these green pushers really wanted renewable energy then they would take up hemp production in a free market economy instead of pushing for government cap and trade and every other bureaucratic control mechanism.

FAIL Solar argument has been

FAIL

Solar argument has been false for 40 years, that's how old this crock argument is.

I'm no climate scientist, I can't say for sure either way, but

I can say in my life I have seen no difference from year to year in climate in any of the places I've lived north or south America. It's generally hot in the summer, cold in the winter. Flowers blossom in the spring and leaves fall in autumn. Hurricanes and tornadoes come in their season. Every thanksgiving time in Washington state a big storm blows through and knocks out power. just like clockwork, got the call from Washington just tonight. Happened again.

According to the geological record our planet has slipped in and out of climate changes entirely without our help as do the other planets. Mostly due to solar activity, meteors and other natural global phenomena, like volcanoes and such. So what I see is in the past few 100 years we've really ramped up human out put of emissions and other pollution and not really any discernable impact. If we can't manage to raise the avg climate more than a degree or drastically change climate patterns in the least with all the crap we throw into the atmosphere then yeah, I'd rather scientists, capital, resources and government theft dollars be used in more useful and productive manner. And the opportunists and fear mongers can go their way.

I believe their argument goes that even our small impact of a degree or so can melt ice caps, change ocean currents, flip the world upside down and hurl polar bears in to space. That it is imperative that all humankind do all that we can to stop AGW. Alright say we did. Will that somehow stop the severe climate altering solar flare the following week, or the multiple massive volcanic eruptions that blot out the sky, or a major tectonic shift that throws Mountains up or affects the tilt of the earth and climate patterns, or will it stop the inevitable large meteor that will hit us someday? Well I'm sure glad I payed those opportunist through the nose and lived like a slave so I could pretend to stave off the inevitable. It's going to happen either way. I'm all for sensible environmental practices and taking care of the earth for future generations use but not for going to ineffective extremes. The measures proposed by those who stand to benefit will do little but rob us and slow down any effect we may be having not stopping it or reversing it. Not worth it.
That doesn't mean AGW is a scam like you or the video are trying to get across, but I still believe the science is still out to lunch on whether we actually have a speck of an impact on global climate patterns. It's all guesswork, know one really knows for sure. There are so many variables, so many unknowns, so many concepts not yet understood that I doubt any definitive conclusion will be forthcoming any time soon for us to do anything about it anyway. I know people want to reverence science and scientists and ridicule the deniers, but just because they came up with a guess doesn't mean it's right. I don't see anyone carrying around science books from the 50's. Ideas and understanding change and evolve. We only have a few decades, possibly a century or two, of varying degrees of accurate climate data and temperatures to work from. That's but a sliver of a sliver of earth history. I'll trust the rock hard solid geological record before I trust a bunch of weatherman and climatologists who can't tell me if it will rain just next week let alone what the climate will be years from now.

If the worst comes to worst people and animals will adapt like they always have. Canada will become a tropical paradise. Mexico a winter wonderland with new ski resorts and I'll have a few more frns in my pocket (hopefully a harder currency) in order to visit and enjoy them.

-Opportunity is definitely a reason why some have latched on to the notion of GW or AGW. There's a sucker born every minute and they will cash in on it.

The video is correct that just because there are opportunists does not support nor negate the underlining premise, but it does call into question the findings of said opportunists and those who stand to directly benefit from the ramifications of those findings. ie if findings conclude AGW is occurring, whether true or not, those invested in cap and trade schemes stand to profit from it. Climate research scientists stand to receive more funding and not be irrelevant and unemployed. Green job entrepreneurs stand to benefit from a push to slow or reverse AGW if true. To believe that not one of these or large swaths of these heavily invested groups are beyond fudging the results in their or their benefactors favor is imo naive. To believe that the agencies and organizations in charge of regulating and approving their methods and findings are not staffed by those in agreement or payed off by those with an agenda is also.There are people very heavily invested in the notion that AGW is real and arguably preventable and I would not put it past them that they would push the issue.

The biggest beneficiary of all, governments and globalists, not so much in terms of money, though that too, but more so in terms of power, it's administration there of, and distribution have the most to gain. How many Government studies have we seen that have turned out to be complete fabrications in order to give more power the government or to cover their backsides? When most research is paid for by these governments and by those who stand to benefit from a certain outcome, it doesn't automatically disqualify those conclusions true, but it should certainly not be taken at face value and severely scrutinized. I know, this is the purpose of peer reviews, but when the peer review researchers and organizations are being funded by same benefactor, it shouldn't be unreasonable to be suspicious of conflict of interest, foul play or merely bending results through creative sampling and research methods. Having true and independent skeptics and those already biased to the idea of AGW peer review findings doesn't really solve the problem either. Their data and findings could be just as skewed towards their agenda. Here in lies the problem. There is no trust. Society can't come to a common conclusion on the issue. No one trusts anyone anymore. The "general consensus of scientists" is being used now in place of evidence of demonstrable and undeniable evidence. No one trusts the data or those collecting. right or wrong. I don't foresee any resolution to this lack of trust. I believe eventually we will all just have to live with the consequences. Either that or live as slaves in a pathetic attempt to avert disaster by hobbling ourselves when global and solar forces are actually the main forces at play here not AGW.

But like I said. I'm just a layman. My opinion's meaningless. I can't answer any of your questions below to any convincing degree of credibility or without using any of the buzz terms or concepts you mentioned below. I would find it interesting if anyone here can but I don't know if anyone here is really that versed in the subject.The issue is indeed an important matter to study and discuss, but I think it is presently being used more as a political/economic weapon than an actual addressable scientific reality/possibility. Both sides do their part in perpetuating that situation.

Frankly, I'm more concerned with other matters that are more immediately harmful to me and my children's future than a possible minor hiccup somewhere down the line in the earth's extremely complex climate machinery. I'm more afraid of the power grab legislation and corrupt schemes being proposed to supposedly remedy agw than than agw itself. Point taken on those implying the scams disprove that agw is necessarily false, I believe there are other things that imply that, but I probably couldn't supply you with anything that would satisfy you. I'm sure others will provide useful credible information. I look forward to the interesting discussion if one occurs.

let's cut this short. I

let's cut this short.

I apologize I didn't read the whole post yet. but if you agree :...

he video is correct that just because there are opportunists does not support nor negate the underlining premise, but it does call into question the findings of said opportunists and those who stand to directly benefit from the ramifications of those findings. ie if findings conclude AGW is occurring, whether true or not, those invested in cap and trade schemes stand to profit from it.

Then you MUST be VERY skeptical of think tanks which block policies, such as AEI, CEI, GCMI, SPPI, OISM if they can be shown to receive money from fossil fuel companies.

But I don't see you use that standard, this is HYPOCRISY. You would not demand deregulation and market anarchy if you knew the consequences would hurt you either. (for example, if the government said oil companies are allowed to bribe politicians or buy votes, you'd say they're hurting democracy, rather than engaging in free speech)

poq - well written

Too much common sense ... could be troublesome ..joking.

cheers,

If there really was a huge concern about AGW/CO2 emissions... I do not think outsourcing to Asia would of been contemplated..ie. all the transportation involved and lack of criminal prosecution for polluting in China and India for example

Just like with peak-oil ..you never see the price of oil lubricants or plastics rise somewhat as the levels as petro prices do in my life experience. ie. almost everything is packaged in plastics today. I need safety glasses and a drill to open the packaging of the most basic of household items lol

donvino

is the lack of price change a

is the lack of price change a good or bad thing? or does it depend on who you are?

I saw evidence that NASA

I saw evidence that NASA perverted data. Anyway, CO2 gives life to the vegetation. If CO2 really IS out of balance (I have seen no proof) then why aren't the "bleeding hearts" stopping the rape of the rain forest, and planting more trees and plants everywhere??

please show me the evidence

please show me the evidence that NASA perverted data.

What would be proof that CO2 is out of balance?

BKV..lots of info on this.

BKV..lots of info on this. Follow some links here if u wish..

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009...

I already did. I actually

I already did.

I actually also read the most damning and condemning accusation of Climategate from the Senate report.

No scientific challenges I can find, just messages & jargon.

When you actually HAVE EVIDENCE or either fraud, wrongdoing, or scientific studies against GW, AGW, let me know.

BKV..I am not investigating

BKV..I am not investigating this myself, now because I already have and do not believe it (years ago). Here is the nasa evidence..

In November 2008, NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, announced that the previous month had been the hottest October on record. It later emerged that the data produced by NASA to make the claim, and in particular temperature records covering large areas of Russia, was merely carried over from the previous month. NASA had used temperature records from the naturally hotter month of September and claimed they represented temperature figures in October.

You may think this is small but it is proof of falsification of data.

is that it? One month?

is that it?

One month? Exposed?

Nowhere else again?

If you

can not grasp it after watching this video

http://climategate.tv/2010/11/19/climategate-is-still-the-is...

Then my stance is your undereducated to be discussing the subject and a paid representative. Much like someone being shot on stage then telling everyone in the crowd till his last breath that the evidence supporting the belief that I was shot is nonsense!!!

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

hahaha, you're an idiot if

hahaha, you're an idiot if you believe climategate exposed anything.

there was NO TEMPERATURE DATA CHANGED by CRU.

please

Your a liar of the 1st degree to even claim climategate exposed nothing.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

No, you're a dupe for

No, you're a dupe for believing whatever you're told.

Climategate DID NOT fake any temperature data as many actually were led to believe.

I know the e-mail off my head better than you can copy them.

"adjusted to look like real temperature"
"travesty we can't account for lack of warming"
"I did Mike's nature trick to hide the decline"

None of which are affected by, or had any change on ACTUAL TEMPERATURE DATA WHICH THEY ARE UNABLE TO TOUCH.

1960s & on, we found that tree ring data no longer work as a good proxy for temperature, so throw out all the tree ring info we have, look at INSTRUMENTAL DATA, or other proxy data for the past!

Your the dupe

The emails are just the admittance of guilt more evidence is to be found in the review notes. This is where you will find your artificially adjusted numbers.

Do not come here and claim you know they have been cleared and its case closed or that you've read the data when you clearly haven't.

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/HARRY_READ_ME.txt

Programmer notes as he tried to make sense of the data in the system as he reviewed it and found the inconsistencies and various anomalies.

You better review your both sides before you come preaching here some of us are well versed in dealing with propaganda or one sided ignorant trumpeting.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

hahaha you again show your

hahaha

you again show your ignorance.

Yes, I read it.

How can he "adjust it to look like real temperature" UNLESS HE KNEW WHAT REAL TEMPERATURE WAS?!

The fact is, they NEVER EVER faked temperature data in CRU, because we get temperature data from other sources.

So you're the idiot for thinking that they're talking about temperature!

Yes again

I show your an idiot that hasn't read anything but one liners to attempt to defend an undefendable position.

You didn't read it if you had read it you would have known about it and it implications.

You do not dispute anything you just keep parroting "The .01 being made .1 doesn't mean they changed anything!" You also keep ignoring that it is not just about temperature data. It is also about data being excluded data being included from dummy stations. Many different variables.

I am done with you like i said before till you can produce a panel review that is impartial and reviews both data sets you have nothing but see see the glove doesn't fit if I hold my hand this way!!

So from here on the alls I have to say to you is produce the panel review. You are just blowing smoke till then.

The Abuse of Greatness is when it disjoins remorse from power. - Shakespeare

What are the implications I'm

What are the implications I'm missing? Spell it out if you actually know, so far all you've done is drop the cliche words with no details.

I actually know what I'm talking about, because I know we have instrumental data going back as far as 1860.
And you think temperature data was fudged.
(When I point out that it isn't, you change the subject and say "but that's not all it is")

"It is also about data being excluded data being included from dummy stations. "
What data would that be? Other than temperature?

"till you can produce a panel review that is impartial and reviews both data sets "
Can you do what you demand of me?
Is anybody impartial on this?

Why can't I say you're blowing smoke too?

I DO dispute the allegation that scientists "fudged, forged, faked, manipulated" data, since all they really did was smooth proxy data trends to fit ACTUAL TEMPERATURES. If you want to discard all proxy data, fine, but that HURTS YOUR ARGUMENT and global warming would actually be MORE SOLID.

Again, I stand by my accusation to you, that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT DATA YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, which is why you keep asking me to read what I've read already, and can't explain what it is I'm missing.