Global Warming Scam Exposed?

Correct, and according to some astronomers from details on sunspots and blah blah. It has to.

The increase in the temperatures of the oceans means that there is more precipatation in the atmosphere. This water in turn is dumped onto the land masses, which is something you can see world wide right now with the biggest floods ever "recorded" (recorded being the key, we dont know if it happened before but wasn't recorded). And of course the melting of the glaciers and icecaps means there is more water. This water will cool down the land masses. Water reflects more heat than it absorbs. So the increase of the water masses in the world will eventually drop the temperature again as there is less land to hold the heat. If calculations are right we should be expecting a mini ice age very soon. It has been compared to sun spot activity and seems to happen every 400 years. The last one was in the 1600's when the netherlands pretty much froze solid.

Is it getting warmer.. yeah.. are we to blame.. I doubt it. We might be speeding up the process by 3 or 4 years by adding in greenhouse gases to the atmoshere, BUT I personally believe it was going to happen anyway. When everything suddenly starts freezing over, do you think they will say it is because we have now decreased the worlds carbon foot prints, or because it was MEANT to happen anyway?

Same as the hole in the ozone. We were only able to detect it recently because technology allowed us to. Was it there before... who knows, Since we couldn't detect it before, it could of been there for a thousand years already?
 
But still, if it were a scam, living a greener life would be a better lifestyle for our planet, like religion, even if God didn't exist, living your life as a religious person would still mean that you would or should commit less sins and be kind to other people. If your God didn't exist but you still try and be a good person in his eyes, then I ask you, what harm is there in it. The world would just be a better place.

So even if Global warming is a hoax, trying to cause less pollution would still be a better rather than causing as much as possible.

Think about it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes global warming is a scam, I have known that for a wile, just string the facts together, I saw AL Gores "Fakementry" BS!
Ice ages and Global warming are the natural progression of the earth, yes we may be adding to it, but very little if all,
But this BS of the world is going to end is just a a scam so that the illuminati can't extort "carbon tax" from us, Why is it that all the scientist that said it was not true in the media have "shut up?"
 
CrAzYLeGs69 said:
So even if Global warming is a hoax, trying to cause less pollution would still be a better rather than causing as much as possible.
Click to expand...
There I agree. I still think the should take AL gore's nobel prize away.

If somebody was given a peace price and it was later found out he was murdering women and children they would take his away. So why not Al gore's. I also think he should give the millions he as made to pay back all the taxes we have to pay for plane tickets and things like that as well. Living a better live is one thing, paying because of somebodies lies is another
 
Kalvaer said:
There I agree. I still think the should take AL gore's nobel prize away.

If somebody was given a peace price and it was later found out he was murdering women and children they would take his away. So why not Al gore's. I also think he should give the millions he as made to pay back all the taxes we have to pay for plane tickets and things like that as well. Living a better live is one thing, paying because of somebodies lies is another
Click to expand...

They won't take it away because most of what Gore has said in An Inconvenient Truth is still factually correct.
 
Fieldy said:
I was hoping that more of a discussion concerning the material that was leaked would be discussed.

For instance, the following



Update 12:58 - Oh oh.... From Phil Jones... and its recent:

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>, "raymond s. bradley" <[email protected]>
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May 9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: "Caspar Ammann" <[email protected]>

....

2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.

And then there's this...

From: Phil Jones <[email protected]>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <[email protected]>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
Cheers
Phil

One has to wonder: was the "way around it" (the FOI) mentioned in the first correspondence to intentionally destroy the emails requested?

This is fraudulant representation of information, and it goes right to the very top.
One hopes that the media will present this honestly to the public and inform the public what Al Gore, Goldman Sachs and the other "Climate Profiteers" are planning.

For those of you that ask "Why are the Glaciers Melting" it is more than likely natural. You just have to look at the ice data for the Arctic and Antarctic to realise that they are at levels last seen in the 70's when all the alarmists were screaming about another Ice Age.

Global Warming/Climate Change is a Scam.
Click to expand...

Seems to be taken out of context and a lot of what they're saying is rather ambiguous. You can't condemn them when you yourself says "one has to wonder what XYZ means". Innocent until proven guilty and all that.
 
CrAzYLeGs69 said:
But still, if it were a scam, living a greener life would be a better lifestyle for our planet, like religion, even if God didn't exist, living your life as a religious person would still mean that you would or should commit less sins and be kind to other people. If your God didn't exist but you still try and be a good person in his eyes, then I ask you, what harm is there in it. The world would just be a better place.

So even if Global warming is a hoax, trying to cause less pollution would still be a better rather than causing as much as possible.

Think about it.
Click to expand...

NICE ONE! I agree wholeheartedly.

I really have no idea what people calling for this to be a hoax are hoping to achieve? Are they wanting to be able to spew out pollutants without guilt? Sure, if this is a "hoax" it may not affect global temperatures but it still has health consequences!

What is the point of arguing against a greener lifestyle? Please someone tell me.
 
Kalvaer said:
There I agree. I still think the should take AL gore's nobel prize away.

If somebody was given a peace price and it was later found out he was murdering women and children they would take his away. So why not Al gore's. I also think he should give the millions he as made to pay back all the taxes we have to pay for plane tickets and things like that as well. Living a better live is one thing, paying because of somebodies lies is another
Click to expand...

So you are saying you are all for living a cleaner greener life but you are opposed to having to pay a little bit of a "sin tax" to enjoy your luxuries like flights and cleaner fuel?

You can't have your cake and eat it!

And if someone like Al Gore is able to cause enough publicity to put pressure on murderers such as those in this link to change there ways then so be it :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1229857/How-16-ships-create-pollution-cars-world.html
 
I'm not arguing against greener lifestyle That would be stupid, It benafits my finaicly and healthwize
I'm arguing against having to pay money to a hypocrite who is telling me I've done something wrong which is BS
 
Here's an interesting comment that highlights some of the *real* issues with the leaked mail, with responses from Gavin Schmidt:

Gavin,

Working under the assumption that the emails are genuine…

Nothing has been found to incriminate the science itself. The personal stuff is irrelevant. The bad stuff relates to responses to FOI and one presentation of results, and are imv very bad…

a) Requesting that scientists delete email correspondence
b) in the knowledge that those emails may be subject to FOI

[Response: This was ill-advised. - gavin]

c) Proposing to deliberately mangle/supply requested data into a form that is more difficult to use

[Response: Not true. - gavin]

d) Proposing the deletion of parts of a dataset before it is released under FOI

[Response: Depends what was requested and what was in the datafile. Some of it might not have been responsive. - gavin]

e) Considering the deletion of an entire dataset to avoid FOI release

[Response: Shouldn't have been said but is clearly hyperbole and not an actual proposal. - gavin]

f) Deliberately concealing a mismatch between reconstructed and instrumental temperatures (”to hide the decline” is unambiguous, and is not excused by the fact that the discrepancy is discussed in *other* publications; Pat Michaels’ omission of Hansen 1988’s B & C scenarios in Congressional testimony is not justified by the fact that they were available in Hansen 1988 — I am not saying though that the two are ethically equivalent)

[Response: They are not in the slightest. Michaels' actions were a deliberate misrepresentation of Hansen's work in front of Congress. The incompleteness of a caption in a brochure while unfortunate is nothing like as serious, nor does it rise to deliberate misrepresentation. The procedure used should simply have been noted more clearly. - gavin]

g) Witholding a clean, commented version of publicly released code, presumably with the intention of not making use of the code any easier

[Response: Your presumption is just not justified by the text. Just below he says "Phil: is this worth a followup note to GRL, w/ a link to the Matlab code?" which is hardly a declaration that the code is going to be withheld. Code gets cleaned up and hopefully easier to use all the time. - gavin]

This appears to be (hopefully) ‘the lot’. All relate to Phil Jones with the exception of g) (Michael Mann).
Click to expand...

So that's the worst of the correspondence. Schmidt's explanations seem to explain most, if not all, of the issues. Basically it only looks like Question (d) above that has an unclear answer from Schmidt. If we assume the worst regarding Question (d) it is certainly a serious issue that would require Phil Jones to pay the price, but it's hardly indicative of a global consipiracy, and it's certainly not the death of AGW.

Also very interesting to note that out of all the questions above, except one, it was only ONE PERSON (Phil Jones) who's statements are suspect.
 
Tpex said:
DUh we are in south africa!

It happens in America, Carbon tax and carbon credits
Click to expand...

Exactly my point! Hence me questioning you stating this in your post :

Tpex said:
I'm not arguing against greener lifestyle That would be stupid, It benafits my finaicly and healthwize
I'm arguing against having to pay money to a hypocrite who is telling me I've done something wrong which is BS
Click to expand...

And without doing research I would think you'll find those taxes etc go to the government and not Al Gore personally.
 
LancelotSA said:
Exactly my point! Hence me questioning you stating this in your post :



And without doing research I would think you'll find those taxes etc go to the government and not Al Gore personally.
Click to expand...

Ah "Carbon credits?" Al Gores personal company

ether way its wrong
 
Tpex said:
I'm not arguing against greener lifestyle That would be stupid, It benafits my finaicly and healthwize
I'm arguing against having to pay money to a hypocrite who is telling me I've done something wrong which is BS
Click to expand...
Exactly what I feel as well. Its funny how everyone who was all "OMG we are going to die" are now all "So what.. at least we are living healthier"

As I said from the beginning are we doing bad.. yeah. Is is bad as they made out.. Nope. I am going to piss myself laughing if the ice age some of the scientist expect, does actually happen
 
Kalvaer said:
Exactly what I feel as well. Its funny how everyone who was all "OMG we are going to die" are now all "So what.. at least we are living healthier"
Click to expand...

Do you mind pointing out exactly who these people were that were saying this? Strangely enough if memory serves me it was actually you that was constantly going on about us all dying as a result of the ice age.

As I said from the beginning are we doing bad.. yeah. Is is bad as they made out.. Nope. I am going to piss myself laughing if the ice age some of the scientist expect, does actually happen
Click to expand...

You said from the beginning that we are doing bad? Hmm, I think I may need to go back through this thread and find proof of that myself.

You also seem to be conveniently failing to realise that a number of us have repeatedly stated that we don't give a damn if this whole global warming thing is a farce. It has been a great publicity stunt and it has made people aware of how we are destroying our planet. I am a total believer in cyclical weather patterns. These are to be expected. What is of concern is how we are fsuking up the planet. If it takes scare tactics of "we are all going to die" to get some idiots to catch a wake up and realise the impact we are having then SO BE IT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X