Global warming: Real or Fraud?

[Dilla]

Oh but it is... I think you may underestimate how corrupt and evil the government really is... no?

Apparently...I don't believe the government is made up of a bunch of Monty Burns type arch-villains, no.

Ok uhm but.. aren't you missing something? maybe that global warming was exposed through hacked emails and it's already proven that man does not effect the climate? did you like.. choose to ignore all these facts somehow?

Kamuix, those emails exposed some minor corruption in one office. One. There are a multitude of others, under the control of completely different groups (unless the masons control everything) who largely agree that made-made global warming is real. This idea been around for a generation of scientists now. I don't believe they've managed to control the output of most of climate science for 20 years. I don't. They may be corrupt, but they're just not that competent and organized.

Certainly, I think that too many people are accepting the story presented to them as orthodoxy, and there is a unhealthy level of hysteria in some quarters, but that doesn't make it untrue, either.

You thought that it was a lie before you heard about these emails, so what was your proof a month ago?

Well considering there is no problem.. why do we need to tax innocent people once again for nothing?

Tax innocent people? You make it sound as though taxation is the equivalent of being gassed. Diagnosis: too much Alex Jones.

 

[Dilla]

Oh Dilla you silly goon

I think the taxes will help them out.. billions of dollars of our tax money to pay to help something that doesn't exist. not to mention even if it did exist it wouldn't be a solution and allows the rich companies to pollute more.

An assault on economics won't help them that's just what it'l be. He never said that directly

And they desire to grab all this tax money to what end again? More hookers and blow?

 

[GraphicMatt]

Plus, isn't it more likely that the really shadowy evil corporations are the people behind things like the Alberta Tar Sands? Is the narrative really "Don't worry guys, global warming's a hoax - just check the emails. Now let's continue spewing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere and tossing waste by-products into lakes and streams."

I'm not one to generally support Pascal's Wager type arguments, but even IF there's no man-made global warming, isn't reducing CO2 emissions still markedly a Very Good Thing?

It is unlikely that, 50 years from now, we'll be sitting around wishing we had taken the opportunity to pollute more.

 

[Second_in_pie]

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/a/u/1/dAqqAnUxACY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94KH-WMZuw0

Part 1 and part 2. He's reading from the official documents and gets all his information from government reports. so no Second_in_pie you can't say "Oh there's no proof so it can't be true"

Sorry, but I can't take someone who starts his video with

"Free Humanity struck a great blow against against the forces of world government and tyranny,"

very seriously.
Again, it's very hard to fight these guys with real data, because they'll just say that the freemasons manipulated the data or something. Yet their 1% of science that agrees with their views is obviously untainted and not manipulated in any way, and must prove that global warming is a result of the secret world government trying to destroy humanity. Now even for that last part, first that there's a secret world government that's actually pulling all the strings in everything anyone does, whether it be the UN, the US, or Wal-Mart, is quite absurd. Then, that they would somehow benefit from the world going back to the dark ages, is even more absurd. I mean, that doesn't even make any sense.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that your "undeniable evidence" is interpreting, that the fact that there were some discrepancies in a study surely means that the earth is in fact cooling and humanity's not to blame. Sorry pal, but there have been thousands of studies in the past 40 years, and over 99% of those studies have showed that the earth is in fact warming and that humans are to blame.

Also if you go back there's more interesting talks with Jesse Ventura and others. Oh but Alex is full of it right? BTW wonderboy was right your argument is actually working more against you then for you.. You demand to see proof? Alex always holds up the government documents and shows his proof. Also.. you demand to see proof that Alex speaks the truth but you demand nothing from the side your on which are the real lairs and the evidence of that is actually all over the place.

Ok you want proof?
Interesting, this totally raw data says that the earth has in fact warmed over the past 30 years. So the earth is warming, at least.

Oh, and here's more evidence that is providing a reinforced steel link between human activity and global warming http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article516033.ece

The less people to act on this the higher chance are freedoms are going down the shithole!!! It won't be pleasant for us and future generations!

Yep, I can't take this seriously anymore. It's totally impossible to argue with you people, so I'm just not going to try.

 

[kettal]

Kamuix, remember to drink the Kool-Aid before midnight. Everybody left alive will be tortured by the aliens once they arrive.

 

[Prometheus The Supremo]

global warming is a lie! look how cold it is outside right now! if it were true, we'd see women in bikinis instead of snow. this is clearly a masonic conspiracy to try to get women to wear bikinis in wintertime in order to please the masonic god jahbulon. countless women will suffer from erect nipples and cold bum. envirofreaks, the cold bums of many women will be on your hands! flouride, illuminati, nwo, guns, 9/11, jesus, rabble rabble rabble!

 

[SlickFranky]

You seriously wouldn't care if Toronto and most of the north was under miles of ice again?

No, I wouldn't (actually won't is more accurate, because it will happen). Since the Earth periodically goes through cooler periods, and Toronto is situated fairly high (latitudinally speaking), it's inevitable that our city's location will once again be completely iced over. The main reason I don't care is that those changes happen at a glacial pace (pun intended), and I do not plan to live to be 10,000 years old. If I did somehow become immortal, watching the oncoming ice age would be fascinating, so I'm still ok with it. I'm sure people would be able le to get out of the way...it's a glacier, not an avalanche.

 

[gristle]

From what I've read, glaciations end and start rather abruptly. The earth is still in an "ice age." However, we're lucky enough to be living during an interglacial "warm" period.

Ontario is filled with the scars of the glacial periods.

 

[Kamuix]

Sorry, but I can't take someone who starts his video with

"Free Humanity struck a great blow against against the forces of world government and tyranny,"

HA! see you just did it again.. you came up with a dumb excuse to dismiss everything he says. Remember if this is a huge deception and all of this stuff he says is really going on then that's not a dumb thing for him to say at all, because it would in that case be true, which has tons of evidence to suggest that.

it's very hard to fight these guys with real data, because they'll just say that the freemasons manipulated the data or something.

LOL! funny because the emails leaked were proof that the data they all present is false, PROVE they admitted it and everything so you can't really say that.

yet their 1% of science that agrees with their views is obviously untainted and not manipulated in any way, and must prove that global warming is a result of the secret world government trying to destroy humanity

1% huh? more like 80 - 90%

Now even for that last part, first that there's a secret world government that's actually pulling all the strings in everything anyone does, whether it be the UN, the US, or Wal-Mart, is quite absurd. Then, that they would somehow benefit from the world going back to the dark ages, is even more absurd. I mean, that doesn't even make any sense.

Power corrupts. look at hitler and Stalin they did the same thing on a smaller scale. I know it seems crazy but these people are bad and criminal and it's all about control with these people so from their point of view it's obviously befitting them.

Another thing I'd like to point out is that your "undeniable evidence" is interpreting, that the fact that there were some discrepancies in a study surely means that the earth is in fact cooling and humanity's not to blame. Sorry pal, but there have been thousands of studies in the past 40 years, and over 99% of those studies have showed that the earth is in fact warming and that humans are to blame.

Again.. data has been manipulated. And tons of real data is out there. just hard to find at the top of your first google search. Besides it's not just the evidence that global warming is false that has us think it's false. it's the other stuff that points to them obviously lying, let's see.. The fact that glaciers grow smaller and bigger every year? then Al gore shows videos of ice breaking off and landing in the water like it's a horrible thing not caused by a natural cycle! When spring comes and snow starts melting OH NO GLOBAL WARMING! theyve been caught so many times lying just do the research!!

Ok you want proof?
Interesting, this totally raw data says that the earth has in fact warmed over the past 30 years. So the earth is warming, at least.

Oh, and here's more evidence that is providing a reinforced steel link between human activity and global warming http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle516033.ece

You keep bringing up data that you find using a search engine. There's tons of false data that's going to appear at the top of your first google search that's corrupt and it's not that kind of data per say. it's all the other obvious things that they do that really exposes them. Like the fact that they refuse to debate in an honest way

 

[gristle]

Kamuix, those emails exposed some minor corruption in one office. One. There are a multitude of others, under the control of completely different groups (unless the masons control everything) who largely agree that made-made global warming is real. This idea been around for a generation of scientists now. I don't believe they've managed to control the output of most of climate science for 20 years. I don't. They may be corrupt, but they're just not that competent and organized.

I don't like the paranoia fringe stuff surrounding things like this. However, that "office" is the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, and its one of the five major sites for archiving and assembling historic climate data. It is (was?) to have been considered to have the best climate reconstructions. Sadly, some Russian climate researchers have recently noted that CRU records showed only a handful of temperature sites being used from that country. They have alleged that CRU researchers picked only the stations that showed warming, and excluded those that either showed no historical change over time, or showed cooling.

The files that were hacked included data as well as emails, and those email exchanges were between some of the most often cited climate researchers. Dr. Phil Jones, who heads CRU, is on a leave of absence while an investigation takes place. Dr. Michael Mann, from the University of Pennsylvania - also a major voice in climate research - is under investigation. From what I understand, at least one U.S. Federal Lab has ordered its employees not to erase any emails or data pending another investigation related to what is going on at CRU.

So the allegations of data manipulation and other questionable activity are being taken quite seriously - as they should be. Institutions such as these are publicly funded, and the results they provide are crucial to world policy decisions regarding emissions.

Other keepers of historical climate data are located at:

NASA - Goddard Spaceflight Centre (GISTEMP)
NOAA - National Climatic Data Centre
Remote Sensing Systems (satellite data)
University of Alabama at Huntsville (satellite data)

There are others as well that focus on specific aspects of climate ( for example: snow and ice coverage and cloud cover).

 

[Dan416]

I think Kamuix relishes these conspiracy theories, whether it be Climate Change (the preferred term, over "Global Warming"); 9/11; 2012. I'm sure Kamuix also believes the H1N1 vaccine is some kind of government plot. And that aliens exist and are among us and are abducting us. And that the world is flat. And that Darwin was full of shit. Need I go on?

This whole thing is hardly worth commenting on. It's laughable. Not worth being taken seriously. I mean, really?

But you know, there are Darwin Awards and they exist for a reason...

 

[gristle]

Actually, the term "climate change" makes no specific reference to warming alone. Climatologists use the term to refer to the well-established natural variability of climate. "Global warming" was originally used to refer to the idea of a human influence on climate. Unfortunately, the adoption of the term "climate change" over global warming serves to blind people to the very well-established fact of the previously mentioned variability: climate can - and does - change over time. That is a well-established scientific fact.

Presently, while there is evidence to suggest a human impact on climate globally (and most certainly locally), there is also considerable evidence that suggests the slight warming from the mid 1970's to 2000 was brought on by natural climate fluctuations. Possibly, both nature and humanity might be "working together" to generate this change.

While some people may be promoting the idea that the science is settled when it comes to a human impact, the story is nowhere as conclusive as thought. Why else would hundreds of millions of dollars be spent for ongoing research?

 

[Second_in_pie]

^^ I think both terms are correct. Both imply it happening at levels way out of the natural level, but they both mean different descriptions of the same action. With the Global Warming definition, the Earth as a whole is getting warmer. But with the Climate Change definition, not all parts of the Earth are getting warmer; with changes in some areas, other places might get colder, wetter or more arid. An excellent example is the North Atlantic Current: If Greenland keeps melting at the rate it's at, London will be as cold as Halifax in the winter, and Stolkholm will be like Yellowknife.

 

[gristle]

^^ I think both terms are correct. Both imply it happening at levels way out of the natural level, but they both mean different descriptions of the same action. With the Global Warming definition, the Earth as a whole is getting warmer. But with the Climate Change definition, not all parts of the Earth are getting warmer; with changes in some areas, other places might get colder, wetter or more arid. An excellent example is the North Atlantic Current: If Greenland keeps melting at the rate it's at, London will be as cold as Halifax in the winter, and Stolkholm will be like Yellowknife.

I wouldn't go so far as to say both terms are correct. Both terms are now used interchangeably - which in my opinion is unfortunate. As I mentioned earlier, natural climate variability - locally and globally - is a fact, and is on-going. The term "Anthropogenic Global Warming" was intended to describe the alleged human contribution to the global climate. But it's worth noting that people can change local climates by doing things such as clearing forest land for farming or suburbs, or by building cities with lots of concrete, asphalt and black rooftops. Those things have a very easily measurable impact local climate conditions.

The whole earth is not getting warmer. The temperature that is being referred to in this instance is an average taken from a wide range of measurements, and not the whole planet. There are surface measurements, radiosonde measurements and satellite measurements to contend with when attempting to calculate this average. Over time, some locations around the globe have seen a temperature increase, others a decrease, and yet others have experienced no change at all. It is the weighting of all these measurements and their differences that can easily produce variations in overall results.

Concerning Greenland, there is no uniform melting across the entire expanse. Glacial movement is part of the cycle of large ice masses, and different parts will move faster than others, while at the same time other portions come to a halt. In fact, some areas of Greenland have shown an increase in ice coverage. As for the melting of ice around Greenland, remember that changes in sea ice coverage are largely due to changes in ocean oscillations, and not air temperature alone (the oceans carry far more heat than air, and oceans are heated largely by the sun). To melt Greenland, you would have to have a very considerable increase in temperature, and you would have to wait for hundreds of years - or longer - to melt any appreciable portion. But you would really need much more ocean warmth over the entire globe to do the job, and that doesn't appear to be happening.

 

[Admiral Beez]

One thing that bothers me about climate change coverage in the media is how they assume that climate change, man-made or otherwise will be a disaster for the world. If the world gets warmer, this could be very beneficial for Canada, we could grow crops further northward and for longer periods, we could transit ships via the NW Passage increasing trade, etc. I think the assumption that climate change is bad for everyone is just that, an assumption.