Climate Change Fraud

[Chris Fleming]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAqZ1OHJf1s

[mixjourneyman]

The climate change debate is interesting because there are a number of very good scientists (at the top of their respective fields) deny climate change, but are given no voice in the media and of course denied a platform on a political level.
My father is big into the climate change debate and has been drudging up many articles with solid scientific basis decrying the climate change theory as totally wrong. I believe that actually climate change promoters are quickly finding that the overall temperature of the earth has actually gone down in the last ten years as opposed to going up (IE: no verifiable proof of global warming) and that we may be entering a mini ice age.
The highly unfortunate thing about this debate is the polarization of left and right wing groups, with the left promoting climate change and the right denying it. Of course that is only a bad thing if you are a pinko commie socialist Canadian like myself, but there you have it

[zenshiite]

I don't think you understand what climate change means if you think that a small cooling trend necessarily means global warming isn't true. As for a "mini ice age" I tend to think there has to actually be ice in order for there to be any kind of ice age, and we know that the polar caps are melting at an alarming rate.

[gosao]

I don't see understand the whole resistance thing about global warming theory. Scientists are right about some things and wrong about others. Studies will show this one day and something else totally opposite the next. Then you get these groups that just take the studies that fit their agendas as proof of lies by the gubment and some sort of global conspiracy. Even if it wasn't true that we're going through global warming the fact that some of the fixes proposed such as a shift away from fossil fuels, using green energy, and renewable resources should only be a good thing overall.

[GaryR]

Gotta love the youtube rants from random people. Climate change is real, perhaps not to the extent Al Gore and the like would lead us to believe. I remember reading a supreme court case that mentioned humans only create something like 6% of carbon dioxide? Time will tell, but like gosao said, using renewable resources and shifting away from fossil fuel is a good thing for whatever reason....

[The K Prodigy]

http://www.extremeicesurvey.org/index.php/time_lapse/

Man, someone better tell those glaciers to stop melting.

[mixjourneyman]

Keep in mind that the globe's climate is always changing. We are coming out of a mini warm age that has been happening since the late middle ages, that would account for the agricultural plethora we have recently experienced, allowing for many parts of the world to sustain a much higher standard of life than ever before in human history. We seem to be entering a cold cycle, what worries me is that the cold may actually be worse than the warm and may further impoverish third world countries. There is quite a lot of scientific dissension around global warming, nothing has been proven to really support the global warming theory and in fact as stated earlier in this post, the world's climate is constantly changing due to natural cycles, so any warming trends (which haven't been shown to be actually happening) are most likely caused by the earth's own weather patterns as opposed to c02 emissions. But this is exactly the kind of thread that I most often try to avoid so I think I'll bow out respectfully and allow whomever wants to duke it out to do so

[Chris Fleming]

Interesting comments and assumptions from people thus far. I'd like to address them for further discussion on this issue.

Firstly it seems that for some reason, people confuse the idea that if a person says that climate change isn't happening the way Al Gore and co say it is, then automatically the person is accused of being a "climate-change-deny-er", which is almost used as a slur nowadays by some (there's a "holocaust denier" connotation to it which would then imply many other things). And furthermore, it seems that if a person speaks out about this, for some reason people then automatically assume that the person is completely for the polluting and destroying of our planet. Quite a jump in logic. Same goes for the idea that we shouldn't develop renewable energy. Who says that? Does it really make sense to think that if a person doesn't believe that man causes global warming that they are also against renewable energy? The issue should be seen clearly and not mixed with other elements of a similar debate.

There most certainly is climate change, but the issue is regarding from whence it came from. Scientists claim that it ISN'T from SUV's and whatnot but from the SUN. You see other planets and their moons warming up as well, some which were formerly all ice are now melting and thus liquefying. I don't think they have SUV's on other planets. The argument is that it is the result of sun spots which are causing the increase in temperature. This is seen in history as well, as there have been similar warming periods in the middle ages which show temperatures similar to what we have now. So from the scientific and historical angles, this issue is NOT an open and shut case like some would assume.

The issue is this: there are 4 things which cause life on this earth--oxygen, water, sunlight and carbon dioxide. You can't tax air or the sun, can't demonize water, but you can try to make a boogie man out of that scary word carbon dioxide, you know, the thing that plants breath.

The sad thing is that average people will accept this kind of (false) new religion of "saving the earth". People have no idea except for what the TV tells them. There's that clip of a person going around with a petition calling for a ban on dihydrogen monoxide (H2O, Water) and everyone was signing it.

People like Al Gore, who in reality is an oil man and who personally stands to make massive riches (and probably already has) from a carbon tax, is doing this not to "save the planet". This is being done to control businesses, countries and engineer a massive transfer in wealth from the many to the very few.

[Chris Fleming]

For a laugh:

http://www.dhmo.org/dihydrogen-monoxide/


"Found in every lake and ocean!!!"


Sad but true, this is a parody of how "science" can be manipulated and presented to a gullible public. Similar to how people like Gore have pictures of ice caps and glaciers melting in the summer time and then present their "proof".

[Chris Fleming]

Gotta love the youtube rants from random people.

Don't like youtube, here's mainstream news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_climate_hacked_e_mails


Interesting concept right there, if this is what you are implying, that the average person CANNOT find out news and discuss it. It is a "rant" from a "random person". Are you saying that only "the experts" (TM) can report on things? I prefer the independent media because you have a much better chance at some real news rather than a corporate sponsored message.

[Buddy]

Now Chris,
You're screwing with people's opinions. They don't actually want to research things, they want to decide (based on their previous political ideals, also not made by any rational deduction but rather on how they "feel") based on the type of person they think they are. Sheeple don't want their ivory towers graffitied on.

[zenshiite]

^Oh please. That's bullshit man.

Even if you can attribute some amount of climate change to sunspots, the problem is that we are suffusing the atmosphere with carbon dioxide above and beyond it's normal capacity. Furthermore, the majority of the scientific community affirm this. It's not really an issue of whether or not climate change is "man-made" but whether or not what man has done is going to tip the scales so far in one direction that there are greater adverse effects than would normally happen in the cycle. This notion that mankind isn't having an impact on climate change ridiculous and it's akin to burying your head in the sand.

Furthermore, if the question is only about the accuracy of the science in question, why act all alarmist like there's some kind of government conspiracy to employ alternative energy? Shit, it's the fucking government that is always holding up any action on climate change. We've known about this problem for 50+ years and there have been plenty of scientists speaking on it since. What has the government really ever done? What has any government actually done? Goddamn, you fucking people astound me in your stupidity. If you are for renewable energy and being eco-friendly, why do you put up such a fight against the majority of the scientific community telling you "hey, this shit is happening and we better take notice and take action to reform how we are doing things to hopefully curb any potential problems due to our tipping the scales in a bad way?" Honestly, if human industry is only responsible for 6% of carbon emissions on the planet that 6% is enough to fuck the whole system up for everyone. What about that don't you understand? Even if it's, on the whole, only a 5% increase from what humans did in the pre-industrial era... that's a big fucking deal in a complex interconnected system.

The fucking pendulum swings both ways Buddy. You've latched onto a minority scientific opinion because it supports your previously held political assumptions rather than because of any rational deduction. It's about how you "feel" and about the kind of person you think your are. That's as sheeple as anyone you're feebly attempting to "call out."

[PartridgeRun]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/ar ... #more-1853

Read about the context and you'll quickly find out that the denialists have nothing going in their favour at all.

Harping on about doing your own research...man, if the denialists would actually do exactly that and make an effort into understanding the nitty-gritty... well, humans will be dumb.

[Chris Fleming]

"Furthermore, the majority of the scientific community affirm this."

Hence the main point of what started this topic. LOL

"why act all alarmist like there's some kind of government conspiracy to employ alternative energy?"

Conspiracy to employ alternative energy? Huh?

"that 6% is enough to fuck the whole system up for everyone"

That is certainly debatable. "The whole system is fucked up" would be a funny scientific report title.

"Goddamn, you fucking people astound me in your stupidity."

I'm going to let this one marinate for you with your choice of words here.

[klonk]

To understand the climate change controversy, you must follow the money. Cap and Trade, Copenhagen, it's a vast expansion of government money and power. Follow the money.

Government sponsored thinkeries will of course say, holy crap, we've got a problem. Hey, here's a grant, free money mang, to have a scientific study to explore the disaster of global warming.

Did you ever pause to think that explorers found no Northwest Passage, though earlier travelers said it was there, simply because ice comes and goes? Before the SUV, or the coal plant, ice melted and froze. Does both.

It's all a money driven hoax, and the sooner you ask who benefits (and who will be taxed, restricted in his activities and otherwise fooled about the bum) the sooner you will know what and whom you are dealing with. It isn't about the climate. It's about taxes, and spending, and enormous new taxes.

Look at the Cap and Trade bill now before the U.S. Congress, ask yourself what good it does and where does all that money go? Follow the money.