News   May 03, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   May 03, 2024
 682     0 
News   May 03, 2024
 308     0 

Global warming: Real or Fraud?

Global Warming: Real or Fraud?

  • Real

    Votes: 58 75.3%
  • Fraud

    Votes: 19 24.7%

  • Total voters
    77
Global Warming... IT'S BEEN EXPOSED! it's over... lol. before you come to a conclusion that anyone who questions it is nuts. I beg you to see what others have to say.. seriously, just type in "global warming" on youtube. It's over... after you've actually seen the evidence I GUARANTEE you that you won't be able to look at things the way peoples have been deceived to.



Let me ask you this, what could make you think it is happening?

The ice caps as well as countless glaciers have are no longer in existence as well as the tireless studies of some of the most presigious scientists in the world. Tell me about it after you get your PhD in environmental science from Harvard.

I know.. it's hard to believe at first. let alone no one wants to believe something like this. But if it's true it can't be ignored. problems like this being ignored will only get WORSE!

LOL!!! Because the fact is that it's not. And the BOTTOM line is that the government doesn't care about you, nor do they care about the ENVIRONMENT.. that's why their lying to you! so you'll pay them taxes, so that they can SCREW YOU OVER. yea.. i'm just some crazy person right?

BACK ME UP BOB!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gefSwMCTjuc

:cool:

Some guy ranting on youtube can hardly count as "facts". Question: are you Glen Beck?
 
Some guy ranting on youtube can hardly count as "facts". Question: are you Glen Beck?

Glen Beck (who is one of the most entertaining guys on TV) did a piece on Tuesday night on this. We tuned in hoping to watch him have his weekly on-air meltdown over Obama's proposed 5% War Tax (which incidentally, he did) and in his third segment took this one on. Glen tells me Global Warming is a conspiracy so it must be true.
 
Last edited:
The carbon tax is meant to be a global tax through the NWO that will TAX you on the carbon dioxide you exhale. have kids? taxed they exhale it.

'Tis better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.'
--Lincoln

Hear that? It was the sound of any shred of credibility you might have had escaping your mouth along with that CO2. Might want to stock up on the tin foil--I hear that the carbon tax will also tax that as part of a government/illuminati plot to allow the aliens behind Halley's comet control our minds using microchips secreted into the H1N1 vaccine.
 
Last edited:
lol very funny.. It's alright i don't mind. i didn't have any credibility so i have nothing to lose. :cool:
 
To be clear: no credible carbon tax scheme suggests taxing respiration, as this is basically impossible, besides completely illogical. There are many better arguments against carbon taxes than 'it's an evil government plot to tax your breath'. Not great arguments, but better.
 
dt:

that's very true. Beck's a funny guy. The line when he starts crying and sobs, " I'm sorry, I just love my country... but I fear for it!", made me bust out laughing. What spoils the fun is that some people take him seriously.
 
http://www.thestar.com/news/sciencetech/environment/article/732010--starving-polar-bears-turn-to-cannibalism?bn=1

Polar Bears turning to cannibalism due to global warming?
Absolute rubbish. Polar Bears have survived during much, MUCH warmer periods on the planet. The ice caps are in a constant state of expansion and contraction (something the public is never educated on) and have had to deal with far worse conditions then what there is right now, and the species has managed to thrive throughout it all (including mass hunting). Who's to say this didn't happen 2500 years ago when the planet was much hotter than it is today? Some chimps (our closest ancestors) will cannibalize each other too, should we really be concerned? Nature is cruel at best. It's absurd how the media points to global warming as the cause for everything, perhaps they should report that Co2 in the atmosphere only increases AFTER temperature has increased, not before it...
 
Kamuix. I have just one question to ask you. Who could possibly gain anything from fabricating a global warming idea? Just explain that to me. It's SO much easier to do nothing. To keep the status quo. Global Warming is a pain in the ass to all governments and all people. I'm sure everyone wishes it would just go away (or be proved to be a huge conspiracy), but that's just not happening. Common Sense is all you need to figure that out.
 
Kamuix. I have just one question to ask you. Who could possibly gain anything from fabricating a global warming idea? Just explain that to me. It's SO much easier to do nothing. To keep the status quo. Global Warming is a pain in the ass to all governments and all people. I'm sure everyone wishes it would just go away (or be proved to be a huge conspiracy), but that's just not happening. Common Sense is all you need to figure that out.

Collectively the developed world has kept the developing nations oppressed by riddling them with an insane debt that they'll never be able to pay-off (hello IMF and World Bank). Now developing nations will not be able to have the kind of industry required from within to develop and provide jobs under the new rules being proposed. Oooh no, can't let them have factories, they're melting the planet! Global warming is a terrific tool for the elites to control and profit greatly from us and to keep the third world mired in debt with no hope of ever recovering.
 
Riiiiight.....

Are you kidding me? Perhaps you should take a few poly sci courses.
Have you seen the debt-load carried by 3rd world countries?
Have you seen the proposed restrictions (and already implemented in parts of Africa!) on new manufacturing and power facilities?
With all the wealth the west has why has so very little effort been made to actually allow the "developing" world to develop? All we have ever done is lend them tons of money for band-aid solutions then sit-back and enjoy massive amounts of interest while exploiting their workers whenever possible.

On top of that, the proposed carbon tax stands to take-in trillions from all of us - are you saying someone isn't profiting from this?

There's no conspiracy, this is without a doubt the most shameful period in human history - with all the knowledge and wealth that we have accumulated we allow much of the world to sit there in disease and poverty and now we're restricting the use of their own resources for the sake of a carbon tax... Something like 0.002% of the world's atmosphere contains carbon that humans contributed and even more concerning is that no study, anywhere, by any scientist has positively made the link between carbon emissions and temperature. Yet countless studies have proven quite the opposite, that the sun is the sole determining factor in temperature (sunspots are what leads to the wild variability) and when the planet heats up, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere increases shortly there after... the exact opposite relation that Mr Gore, CNN and the rest of the non-scientists leading this charge would have you believe.
 
Last edited:
This is kind of stupid. The premise is to give money away to deal, or "cope" with, problems somewhere else, sometime later. Why not just invest the same ten billion in mass transit here starting now?

Canada agrees to contribute to $10-billion climate-change fund

Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn’t budging on calls for his government to offer deeper and faster cuts in greenhouse gas emissions

Steven Chase
Port of Spain — Globe and Mail Update
Published on Saturday, Nov. 28, 2009 8:14PM EST
Last updated on Saturday, Nov. 28, 2009 10:20PM EST

Canada has agreed to write a cheque for a $10-billion (U.S.) fund that would help poor nations cope with the consequences of climate change but Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn’t budging on calls for his government to offer deeper and faster cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.

Leaders of Commonwealth nations representing nearly two billion people threw their weight behind a declaration in Trinidad today to seek an "operationally binding" deal on cutting greenhouse gas emissions in Copenhagen next month. They also backed the proposed Copenhagen Launch Fund, which has played a role in building support among poorer countries for a climate deal.

Mr. Harper, however, declined to respond to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon's call for Canada to offer "ambitious" new targets for cutting greenhouse gases in the mid-term, meaning the next 10 or 15 years.

The Prime Minister, whom environmental activists have accused of intransigence on climate change, was chided by Mr. Ban Friday when the UN leader said Canada has a responsibility as a world leader to do more.

“Many countries, developed and developing countries, have come out with ambitious targets,†the UN leader said.

“Canada is going to soon chair the G8 and therefore it is only natural that Canada should come out with ambitious mid-term targets,†he said.

Asked about Mr. Ban's comments today, Mr. Harper dodged the question, suggesting that since the UN leader likes U.S. President Barack Obama's greenhouse gas-cutting plan, by extension he must actually be happy with Canada's approach too.

"I notice that the UN secretary-general made particular praiseworthy note of targets that President Obama has laid out. Those targets are of course completely in line with the government of Canada’s policy," Mr. Harper said.

Mr. Harper said he's keen to see countries strike a detailed agreement on greenhouse gas reductions in Copenhagen next month.

But he offered no evidence that Canada is thinking of offering deeper cuts in the earlier term, as opposed to its existing targets for 2020 and 2050.

The Prime Minister suggested he had little patience for "abstract targets."

"I look forward to seeing a comprehensive agreement in Copenhagen where we will actually get on with actually reducing emissions as opposed to setting abstract targets," Mr. Harper said.

Separately, Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd came to Canada's defence yesterday, saying that Mr. Harper is "fully supportive of what we have before us." He said Canada's "always had its heart in it."

The 53 Commonwealth countries meeting in Port of Spain Trinidad right now issued the Commonwealth Climate Change Declaration which includes backing for the Copenhagen Launch Fund, starting in 2010 and building to $10-billion in 2012, that would help poor countries cope with the impacts of global warming.

"We pledge our continued support to the leaders-driven process ... to deliver a comprehensive, substantial and operationally binding agreement in Copenhagen leading towards a fully legally binding outcome no later than 2010," the declaration said.

Support for the fund by wealthy countries likely encouraged many of the poorer Commonwealth countries -- that are island states or have low-lying areas – to back the 60-year-old group’s statement of support for Copenhagen.

The declaration said countries must take action to cut emissions but also acknowledge that Commonwealth leaders cannot agree on whether a theorized increase in worldwide temperatures – expected due to global warming – should be restricted to 1.5 degrees Celsius, or 2 degrees, above pre-industrial levels.

Canada is still cautious about a final deal in Copenhagen, suggesting work may remain following the December meeting.

On Friday, Peter Kent, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, played down the chances of an agreement in Denmark next month, telling reporters there was consensus in Port of Spain meetings that the “the odds of a deal in Copenhagen are a long shot.â€

The Commonwealth declaration demonstrates the renewed momentum for a global climate deal in Copenhagen described by French President Nicolas Sarkozy as he visited the Port of Spain talks.

“Over the last three days, things have really started to shift: we have entered into a very active negotiation phase,†Mr. Sarkozy told reporters Friday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...0-billion-climate-change-fund/article1381653/
 
This is kind of stupid. The premise is to give money away to deal, or "cope" with, problems somewhere else, sometime later. Why not just invest the same ten billion in mass transit here starting now?
Because mass transit really isn't the biggest problem. Sure, for the country to become more sustainable and environmentally friendly, we're gonna have to give up cars. But there's much more pressing issues that need to be dealt with.
For instance, getting rid of all coal fired power plants, and replacing fossil-fuel power plants with renewable energies, such as wind, solar, and hydroelectric.
Another might be encouraging rail transportation (something like HSR would be great,) over air and car travel.
The money could also just go to developers and businesses to make things more eco-friendly and sustainable. For instance, if the government subsidizes 100% off the grid buildings (or 90% off the grid,) I'm sure developers will jump on that. If you tell industry that you'll give them a tax break if they don't release any CO2 into the air, they'll embrace the opportunity as well. There's also things like renovations. Imagine what would happen if every house in Canada was fully insulated, with totally sealed windows and doors, and efficient heating units? Massive, massive drops in emissions is what would happen.
It could also just go straight into research, into things like creating a hydrogen economy, new farming techniques, new development systems, and in general new eco-friendly things that aren't quite out yet.

But dumping $10 billion for eco-friendly things straight into public transportation is just stupid, to be blunt. There's so many things the government should be indirectly starting instead. I'm not saying public transport is unimportant, but this money shouldn't be going towards it, unless it can get 30% of all cars off the road.
 

Back
Top