PDA

View Full Version : anthropogenic global warming myth


TheDoc1948
April 5th, 2009, 8:41 pm
In an alleged scholary work, James Hansen of Columbia U., an anthropogenic global warming advocate, failed to even address the importance of the most significant tools of climate change on the earth. They are plate tectonics. volcanism and gravitational flexure of the earth.
Instead, he provided rather anecdotal comments by building hypothetical scenarios leaning towards man caused warming.
Instead, Hansen, et al have made statements regarding an alleged .2 degree C increase per decade appear, by graph, as a massive change to scare the bejabbers out of the casual observer. We cannot measure within a fraction of a degree of accuracy on a global scale! Its pure guesstimation.
Not only that. Hansen wants carbon cap taxes that will only harm the people that have no other choices at this time. He wants local production of food products instead of importing food. Fine. However, does he even have the slightest clue about agriculture? Has he ever seen a wheat field in Kansas and compared that to the area surrounding New York? New York and the surrounding area is not capable of producing the volume of food requisitite to their needs! I hope he doesn't eat any citrus fruit or bread or other grain products as it would be awful to think he is a hypocrite.

Woods Hole Observatory also failed to consider the evidence before them when they reported the eruption of a volcano under the Arctic Ocean. Instead, in a paper they talked about using special techniques to tweak out a measurement of the minute amount of oceanic anthropogenic C02 and then said that man was the major cause of CO2 increases. They failed to recognize the scale of difference between the earth and man on this earth.
They recorded an explosive eruption at 4 km under the ocean in 1999. They recorded the largest swarm of undersea earthquakes ever recorded. Imagine the water pressure on the floor of the ocean at that depth and the eruption was still so explosive that it created a debris field of 10 sq km! They stated this eruption released over 10 times more CO2 than was originally thought from its escape from a magma chamber. This volcano is continuing to erupt 24/7/365, superheating the Arctic Ocean to 752 degrees F at the vents along the Gakkel Ridge. It is continuing to take CO2 out of solution. It is continuing to cause sublimation of methane ice, a much bigger problem.

NOAA stated the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased since 1900 and they are correct. What they failed to mention is that CO2 levels were almost flat lined until 1999 after the volcanic eruption in the Arctic Ocean with a spike in atmospherice CO2 in an attempt to attribute the massive increase in CO2 to industrialization.

Scientific research is good. Instead, we now have science on a wild goose chase, wasting millions of research dollars attempting the most absurd methods to lower CO2 by artificial methodology. Research should be done to determine the effects on global warming by undersea volcanism and the effects on global cooling by terrestrial volcanism.

Are the above charlatans or do they go where the money is or is it purely political? You make the call. Nonetheless, good science has been left behind, in my opinion.

TheDoc1948
April 5th, 2009, 8:54 pm
I would hate to think how much more food would cost with a carbon caps tax when a single combine can use over 250 gallons of diesel fuel in a single day. Now multiply that by the number of combines needed to harvest food in a single season and multipy that by the number of days they have to work to harvest such food products. That doesn't even take into account the amount of fuel that is needed to prepare the land for production.

Guess what, electric combines don't work. LOL

PhantomPholly
April 6th, 2009, 10:28 pm
This fraud is yet another move to overtax the poor, making them more dependent on the government, and in turn justifying even larger government.

Just Say No.

PyramidBuilder
April 13th, 2009, 3:47 pm
Artificially lowering CO2 levels rather than just cutting back on emissions sounds like a very bad idea, like trying to balance out a concentrated mocha with a depressant pill.

PhantomPholly
April 13th, 2009, 6:33 pm
Artificially lowering CO2 levels rather than just cutting back on emissions sounds like a very bad idea, like trying to balance out a concentrated mocha with a depressant pill.

If, as the Global Warmistas claim, CO2 (however it is produced and wherever it comes from) is the CAUSE of alleged increasing temperatures (they have been declining for 5-10 years now), then what does it matter HOW we take carbon out of the air? Whether it is by planting trees or by creating "carbon-sucking factories" which crack the carbon off of CO2 and let the O2 loose, the result would be reduced CO2.

Doesn't it ever make anyone wonder why, if the Globalist agenda says CO2 is bad, that none of their Cap and Trade fraud money is planned for an "Oil Replacement Manhattan Project" or a "CO2 Removal Manhattan Project?"

Instead they plan to use the money for free health care and more wealth distribution programs - the end result of which can only possibly result in MORE HUMAN BEINGS EXHALING CO2.

Hmmmm.....

:wall:

Polkfan
April 13th, 2009, 7:08 pm
This fraud is yet another move to overtax the poor, making them more dependent on the government, and in turn justifying even larger government.

Just Say No.

That's an even bigger load than most of the arguments you make. If the revenues from the carbon trading auctions were used to finance tax rebates to individuals, those are the bottom would see a net income increase.

PhantomPholly
April 14th, 2009, 3:06 pm
That's an even bigger load than most of the arguments you make. If the revenues from the carbon trading auctions were used to finance tax rebates to individuals, those are the bottom would see a net income increase.

Um, speaking of steaming piles - money received from taxes taken forcibly from one group and given to another is not "Income," it is "Welfare" or "a bribe for votes." Please use correct terminology.

The reality however is that calling the tax "carbon credits" if the money taken is not to be used directly to "improve" the climate (and, please note that no one can agree what "better" means) is pure unadulterated FRAUD, and those participating in that fraud should be jailed.

PyramidBuilder
April 14th, 2009, 3:37 pm
The reality however is that calling the tax "carbon credits" if the money taken is not to be used directly to "improve" the climate (and, please note that no one can agree what "better" means) is pure unadulterated FRAUD, and those participating in that fraud should be jailed.

Rather than debate global warming yet again, I'll just say that I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Government shouldn't tax CO2 at all. If CO2 is something that's utterly bad they should reduce it rather than just making money off of it like with tobacco. Misappropriation of funds should be taken seriously, as prevalent as it is.

"Warmistas?"

PhantomPholly
April 14th, 2009, 6:21 pm
Rather than debate global warming yet again, I'll just say that I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Government shouldn't tax CO2 at all. If CO2 is something that's utterly bad they should reduce it rather than just making money off of it like with tobacco. Misappropriation of funds should be taken seriously, as prevalent as it is.

"Warmistas?"

lol - yes, "Warmistas" as in militants shooting at people over a totally imagined cause.

By the way - I don't dispute that humans are having SOME impact on the climate, nor even that it is probably not good. I do however draw the line at a) alarmist hyperbole; b) bad science; c) unmeasurable goals; and d) using an invented "problem" to frighten people into paying yet more taxes which will not be used in any meaningful way to address the excuse used to collect them.

The last is simple fraud, and those perpetrating it should all rot in jail.

If the eco-freaks were serious about limiting mankind's impact on the environment, then they would address the root cause of the problem by demanding that we limit the one emission that causes all other harmful man-made emissions.

That emission is the one that causes more humans, who now outnumber rats on the planet...

:twisted:

That they do NOT address this issue proves that they are liars and frauds.

Polkfan
April 14th, 2009, 6:38 pm
Rather than debate global warming yet again, I'll just say that I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. Government shouldn't tax CO2 at all. If CO2 is something that's utterly bad they should reduce it rather than just making money off of it like with tobacco. Misappropriation of funds should be taken seriously, as prevalent as it is.

"Warmistas?"

Placing a cap on emissions then allowing firms to bid on the permits is a far more effective way to reduce CO2 output than the alternatives.

PyramidBuilder
April 15th, 2009, 5:12 pm
lol - yes, "Warmistas" as in militants shooting at people over a totally imagined cause.

By the way - I don't dispute that humans are having SOME impact on the climate, nor even that it is probably not good. I do however draw the line at a) alarmist hyperbole; b) bad science; c) unmeasurable goals; and d) using an invented "problem" to frighten people into paying yet more taxes which will not be used in any meaningful way to address the excuse used to collect them.

The last is simple fraud, and those perpetrating it should all rot in jail.

If the eco-freaks were serious about limiting mankind's impact on the environment, then they would address the root cause of the problem by demanding that we limit the one emission that causes all other harmful man-made emissions.

That emission is the one that causes more humans, who now outnumber rats on the planet...

:twisted:

That they do NOT address this issue proves that they are liars and frauds.

Hey, you might not be familiar with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. It's not exactly a movement that's going to take off though. Can't imagine people protesting semen with signs and boards as you suggest :). And a dystopian sci-fi future with mandatory vasectomies wouldn't be very exciting.

PhantomPholly
April 16th, 2009, 12:52 am
Hey, you might not be familiar with the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. It's not exactly a movement that's going to take off though. Can't imagine people protesting semen with signs and boards as you suggest :). And a dystopian sci-fi future with mandatory vasectomies wouldn't be very exciting.

Nope, never heard of it.

There are many paths a society can take towards extinction; none of them are sane. However, allowing population to grow unchecked without making SOME attempt to curb it is equally insane, and is yet another path to extinction.

Many of our current problems could be reduced tenfold without "forcing" anyone to do anything, and the cost would pay itself back tenfold in a generation. Example: Pay substantial rewards to anyone with any of the top 10 health problems; top ten learning disabilities; or simply in the bottom 10% of income earners in exchange for sterilization. Make the reward large enough so that approximately 60% accept the offer.

Mathematically, in about 2 generations the average IQ would be 120 (on today's scale - in any generation "average" is always adjusted to 100); the top 10 health problems would be virtually non-existent; and the then-generation would have far more productive people and far fewer people on welfare. Healthcare and welfare costs would thus be reduced so much that almost no one would object to taxes paying for them.

By contrast, the Liberal plan of FORCING people to pay taxes to perpetuate the Welfare state is unethical, immoral, and will INCREASE the problem over time.