Thread: Global Warming Hoax Conspiracy Theory

Originally Posted by Hairball

@bobgnote

What's up with all the incoherent paranoid ranting about zombies and hemp?

Sure you haven't been smoking some o' that wacky tobacky?

When there are no more points to bring up, what is left? Smoke a joint or two and begin to free associate, type whatever springs into your head.

Anyone who thinks generations of industrialization has zero impact on the global environment is a complete fucking idiot and I have zero interest in discussing such matters with them.

OK, like this hasn't been discussed before so forgive me if I repeat some things.

First of all, the ever-changing, esoteric and singularly unidentifiable group of people we call "scientists" say a lot of things. It has become rote for us to believe something because, "scientists say so." However, as we have seen they change their minds. Example: "Coffee is bad for you." Five years later, "Coffee is good for you!" Eggs, wine, chocolate--you name it. Of course if we look further, we see the poor lab rat was subjected to outlandish quantities in concentrated forms of such things that a horse would have dropped dead as well.

Yes, scientists have, more often than not, changed their minds. Why? Because science is and always will be dynamic in nature. Conclusions based upon observations of data. Data produced by methodologies that are varied and therefore produce data just as varied. Given the conditions under which data arises, is analysed and selected and applied to a theory all can lead to a conclusion which is not a reflection of reality but the actual process as influenced by the researcher themselves. Scientists are human and therefore they are subject to the phenomenon of the "self-fulfilling prophecy." They unwittingly steer the process to produce the outcome they expected or supported their theory.

Then we must consider other outside influences. For instance, most researchers are funded in part, if not entirely through government funding or other organizations which support their research. Like scientists hired by Phillip Morris in the 60's to determine if smoking is safe. Paid for, pre-determined results. The financial considerations of Global warming are by far the largest possible influential factor in providing for the condition of global warming to be true rather than false.

I will say it again, the financial considerations of Global warming are by far the largest possible influential factor in providing for the condition of global warming to be true rather than false. Why? Because, currently there exists no replacement for fossil fuels which is both technoligically or financially viable in any reasonable or realistic sense. The financially motivated proponents of "Global Warming as fact," know this reality. That's why someone like Al Gore who promotes measures to end Global warming lives in antithisis to this endeavor. Large mansions, jet-setting, and owning millions of dollars in oil stock. Yes, they know oil isn't going anywhere soon. However, they can create a false commodity of carbon credits which they can invest in. Or, create a carbon tax which all people will pay that will just increase the cost and further line the pockets of the ones pushing global warming. With the power of the government behind them the possibilities are endless.

Further, the science of "going green" isn't going anywhere soon either. This can still exist to the joy of all of the glassy-eyed earth savers. Solyndra is the prime example of how a green company can be the front for funneling billions tax dollars into a few hands. Al Gore personally invested in Fiskar was a benificiary of U.S. tax dollars derived from hardworking 99% ers. Shortly thereafter, Al bought a 9.5 million dollar beach house! GM, financed the re-tooling of it's factory to produce unrealiable green cars called Volts. So as we can see, oil is not hurt by Global Warming alarmists. In fact, as we can see with the example of George Soros and Al Gore, these agressive Global Warming zealots also are involved heavily in oil.

If you are successful at implementing a carbon tax, or cap and trade then your interest lies in not ending the use of oil and coal but promoting it. If you replace oil and coal, you kill the golden goose on many levels. And why kill the goose when you don't have to? You can still have the green goose.

But all that aside. Let's return to the scientists with the notion that we should believe what they say, the majority. We must do so under the predication that what they have said in the past still holds true today. The majority of scientists who advocate global warming to be true also agreed that man caused CO2 is only about 3% of the CO2 generated. Nature then is the cause of 97% of CO2. Scientists also list water vapor as the greatest contributor to warming. In fact, CO2 is a very small percentage of the total vapors and gases that comprise the atmosphere. So that 97% of CO2 contributed by nature is just a minute portion of the overall cause of warming. Imagine then, that 3% that we are responsible for is nearly insignificant.

Now we know that according to scientists that CO2 is a very small part of warming, and man caused CO2 a small portion of that. We also know that to some extent that man caused C02 is more predictable than nature caused CO2. We know how many coal fired plants are running, we track electricity usage, we know what our output is. What is unpredictable is nature's contribution. For example the Yellowstone geothermal activity results in approximately 40 million metric tons of CO2 emmissions annually. Roughly the equivilant of 10 medium sized industrial plants. This can vary by a few million tons. However, the potential for the Yellowstone geothermal activity to fluxuate greatly exists. Afterall, we know that it is really nothing more than a super volcanoe, which according to scientists is overdue to explode again. If this were to occur tomorrow, well then, all of that carbon foot-print stuff would go right out the window. Plant decay, volcanoes, other geothermal areas, forest fires, etc. all unpredictable and all part of the 97% of the CO2.

In short the scientists have told us we are responsible for a small portion of the CO2 that contributes to warming and that very CO2 as compared to water vapor and other gases is a small contributor to warming. Therefore, man's contribution is insignificant.

The scientists in all of their wisdom, have shot off their own foot. Their own argument for man to change his ways. If they had said that man was responsible 40% or 50% of global warming then they might have an argument that us changing our ways would mean something even in the face of the unpredictable contributor of nature. A couple of active year of volcanoes and other natural causes could wipe out decades of man hang drying his clothes, walking, curbing his electricity consumpition and paying his carbon taxes. Thus, man would then be subjected to the doom of Al Gore prophecy. All that Al sells is the notion that you can "save the planet" and by some weird notion gain some form of eternal existance. Ain' happening dudes!

But not being a scientist lost in grant money, egos, political pressure or pop culture. All one has to do is ask themselves. "How did Earth come from a molten, poisonous gas spewing rock to the planet it is today with out man saving it?"

When it comes to Global warming we are not the 99% we are the 3%(CO2) and that my friends in the scheme of things ain't nothing more than a fart on a windy day.

Peace

Originally Posted by Liberal Doses

OK, like this hasn't been discussed before so forgive me if I repeat some things.

First of all, the ever-changing, esoteric and singularly unidentifiable group of people we call "scientists" say a lot of things. It has become rote for us to believe something because, "scientists say so." However, as we have seen they change their minds. Example: "Coffee is bad for you." Five years later, "Coffee is good for you!" Eggs, wine, chocolate--you name it. Of course if we look further, we see the poor lab rat was subjected to outlandish quantities in concentrated forms of such things that a horse would have dropped dead as well.

Yes, scientists have, more often than not, changed their minds. Why? Because science is and always will be dynamic in nature. Conclusions based upon observations of data. Data produced by methodologies that are varied and therefore produce data just as varied. Given the conditions under which data arises, is analysed and selected and applied to a theory all can lead to a conclusion which is not a reflection of reality but the actual process as influenced by the researcher themselves. Scientists are human and therefore they are subject to the phenomenon of the "self-fulfilling prophecy." They unwittingly steer the process to produce the outcome they expected or supported their theory.

Then we must consider other outside influences. For instance, most researchers are funded in part, if not entirely through government funding or other organizations which support their research. Like scientists hired by Phillip Morris in the 60's to determine if smoking is safe. Paid for, pre-determined results. The financial considerations of Global warming are by far the largest possible influential factor in providing for the condition of global warming to be true rather than false.

I will say it again, the financial considerations of Global warming are by far the largest possible influential factor in providing for the condition of global warming to be true rather than false. Why? Because, currently there exists no replacement for fossil fuels which is both technoligically or financially viable in any reasonable or realistic sense. The financially motivated proponents of "Global Warming as fact," know this reality. That's why someone like Al Gore who promotes measures to end Global warming lives in antithisis to this endeavor. Large mansions, jet-setting, and owning millions of dollars in oil stock. Yes, they know oil isn't going anywhere soon. However, they can create a false commodity of carbon credits which they can invest in. Or, create a carbon tax which all people will pay that will just increase the cost and further line the pockets of the ones pushing global warming. With the power of the government behind them the possibilities are endless.

Further, the science of "going green" isn't going anywhere soon either. This can still exist to the joy of all of the glassy-eyed earth savers. Solyndra is the prime example of how a green company can be the front for funneling billions tax dollars into a few hands. Al Gore personally invested in Fiskar was a benificiary of U.S. tax dollars derived from hardworking 99% ers. Shortly thereafter, Al bought a 9.5 million dollar beach house! GM, financed the re-tooling of it's factory to produce unrealiable green cars called Volts. So as we can see, oil is not hurt by Global Warming alarmists. In fact, as we can see with the example of George Soros and Al Gore, these agressive Global Warming zealots also are involved heavily in oil.

If you are successful at implementing a carbon tax, or cap and trade then your interest lies in not ending the use of oil and coal but promoting it. If you replace oil and coal, you kill the golden goose on many levels. And why kill the goose when you don't have to? You can still have the green goose.

But all that aside. Let's return to the scientists with the notion that we should believe what they say, the majority. We must do so under the predication that what they have said in the past still holds true today. The majority of scientists who advocate global warming to be true also agreed that man caused CO2 is only about 3% of the CO2 generated. Nature then is the cause of 97% of CO2. Scientists also list water vapor as the greatest contributor to warming. In fact, CO2 is a very small percentage of the total vapors and gases that comprise the atmosphere. So that 97% of CO2 contributed by nature is just a minute portion of the overall cause of warming. Imagine then, that 3% that we are responsible for is nearly insignificant.

Now we know that according to scientists that CO2 is a very small part of warming, and man caused CO2 a small portion of that. We also know that to some extent that man caused C02 is more predictable than nature caused CO2. We know how many coal fired plants are running, we track electricity usage, we know what our output is. What is unpredictable is nature's contribution. For example the Yellowstone geothermal activity results in approximately 40 million metric tons of CO2 emmissions annually. Roughly the equivilant of 10 medium sized industrial plants. This can vary by a few million tons. However, the potential for the Yellowstone geothermal activity to fluxuate greatly exists. Afterall, we know that it is really nothing more than a super volcanoe, which according to scientists is overdue to explode again. If this were to occur tomorrow, well then, all of that carbon foot-print stuff would go right out the window. Plant decay, volcanoes, other geothermal areas, forest fires, etc. all unpredictable and all part of the 97% of the CO2.

In short the scientists have told us we are responsible for a small portion of the CO2 that contributes to warming and that very CO2 as compared to water vapor and other gases is a small contributor to warming. Therefore, man's contribution is insignificant.

The scientists in all of their wisdom, have shot off their own foot. Their own argument for man to change his ways. If they had said that man was responsible 40% or 50% of global warming then they might have an argument that us changing our ways would mean something even in the face of the unpredictable contributor of nature. A couple of active year of volcanoes and other natural causes could wipe out decades of man hang drying his clothes, walking, curbing his electricity consumpition and paying his carbon taxes. Thus, man would then be subjected to the doom of Al Gore prophecy. All that Al sells is the notion that you can "save the planet" and by some weird notion gain some form of eternal existance. Ain' happening dudes!

But not being a scientist lost in grant money, egos, political pressure or pop culture. All one has to do is ask themselves. "How did Earth come from a molten, poisonous gas spewing rock to the planet it is today with out man saving it?"

When it comes to Global warming we are not the 99% we are the 3%(CO2) and that my friends in the scheme of things ain't nothing more than a fart on a windy day.

Peace

great post.. thanks

Originally Posted by Liberal Doses

OK, like this hasn't been discussed before so forgive me if I repeat some things.

First of all, the ever-changing, esoteric and singularly unidentifiable group of people we call "scientists" say a lot of things. It has become rote for us to believe something because, "scientists say so." However, as we have seen they change their minds. Example: "Coffee is bad for you." Five years later, "Coffee is good for you!" Eggs, wine, chocolate--you name it. Of course if we look further, we see the poor lab rat was subjected to outlandish quantities in concentrated forms of such things that a horse would have dropped dead as well.

98% of climate scientists and over 90% of all earth scientists agree that climate change is happening, and it is affected by human activity. You may bring up the fact that scientists "change their minds" on things as a weakness, but it's actually clearly a virtue of the scientific process; when new evidence is studied, a theory is refined. That's how we come to understand everything from astronomy to biology. That very process is what has drastically increased life expectancy from medicine to safety engineering. You simply can't negatively say "scientists change their minds" without making those who do understand scientific process chuckle a bit.

Yes, scientists have, more often than not, changed their minds. Why? Because science is and always will be dynamic in nature. Conclusions based upon observations of data. Data produced by methodologies that are varied and therefore produce data just as varied. Given the conditions under which data arises, is analysed and selected and applied to a theory all can lead to a conclusion which is not a reflection of reality but the actual process as influenced by the researcher themselves. Scientists are human and therefore they are subject to the phenomenon of the "self-fulfilling prophecy." They unwittingly steer the process to produce the outcome they expected or supported their theory.

Who are "they"?

The scientific community is about as transparent as it gets. Just recently, there was a huge outcry in scientific academia because a bird flu study was withheld from being published. Withholding information from the body of knowledge is called out if it does in fact happen.

Considering that science operates on this shared body of knowledge that it constantly adds to, thus working reciprocally, it's a crazy assertion to say that scientists "steer" the outcome. If that always happened, subsequent studies using data from previous studies would not add up. It wouldn't make any sense.

Then we must consider other outside influences.

For instance, most researchers are funded in part, if not entirely through government funding or other organizations which support their research. Like scientists hired by Phillip Morris in the 60's to determine if smoking is safe. Paid for, pre-determined results. The financial considerations of Global warming are by far the largest possible influential factor in providing for the condition of global warming to be true rather than false.

The outside influences are clear, and naturally, it's where all the money is: energy. That is, the very polluters that this scientific data shows are major contributors to climate change. If you are asserting that "green" industry has a lot to gain from scientific data indicating warming trends, you're right. But it's clearly ridiculous to believe that the "green" industry has more influence than the oil industry alone. It simply doesn't make any sense to assert that scientists would take kickbacks from renewable industry when they could take farm far more from big oil and its interests.

I will say it again, the financial considerations of Global warming are by far the largest possible influential factor in providing for the condition of global warming to be true rather than false. Why? Because, currently there exists no replacement for fossil fuels which is both technoligically or financially viable in any reasonable or realistic sense. The financially motivated proponents of "Global Warming as fact," know this reality. That's why someone like Al Gore who promotes measures to end Global warming lives in antithisis to this endeavor. Large mansions, jet-setting, and owning millions of dollars in oil stock. Yes, they know oil isn't going anywhere soon. However, they can create a false commodity of carbon credits which they can invest in. Or, create a carbon tax which all people will pay that will just increase the cost and further line the pockets of the ones pushing global warming. With the power of the government behind them the possibilities are endless.

As if Al Gore is the "voice" of the scientific community that is in consensus about human-induced climate change.

Most of the rest of your post are just usual partisan claptraps about Al Gore and Soros.

I find it interesting that you don't apply the same "scrutiny" to scientists in other disciplines.

Originally Posted by The Voice of Reason

Anyone who thinks generations of industrialization has zero impact on the global environment is a complete fucking idiot and I have zero interest in discussing such matters with them.

It has a lot in common with the 9-11 "truth" movement and other conspiracy theories.

First, create an assumption. Then, find circumstantial "evidence" that may fit that assumption, and throw out all the evidence that conflicts it. Then, deem anyone arguing against the conspiracy story as "part of the cabal". In this case, it would be the entire field of climatology. Also, assume that the conspiracy will be kept secret by the thousands and thousands of scientists that study climate. And remember to ignore that the oil industry is the richest industry on the globe.

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

98% of climate scientists and over 90% of all earth scientists agree that climate change is happening, and it is affected by human activity. You may bring up the fact that scientists "change their minds" on things as a weakness, but it's actually clearly a virtue of the scientific process; when new evidence is studied, a theory is refined. That's how we come to understand everything from astronomy to biology. That very process is what has drastically increased life expectancy from medicine to safety engineering. You simply can't negatively say "scientists change their minds" without making those who do understand scientific process chuckle a bit.



Who are "they"?

The scientific community is about as transparent as it gets. Just recently, there was a huge outcry in scientific academia because a bird flu study was withheld from being published. Withholding information from the body of knowledge is called out if it does in fact happen.

Considering that science operates on this shared body of knowledge that it constantly adds to, thus working reciprocally, it's a crazy assertion to say that scientists "steer" the outcome. If that always happened, subsequent studies using data from previous studies would not add up. It wouldn't make any sense.

[COLOR=#FF0000]

The outside influences are clear, and naturally, it's where all the money is: energy. That is, the very polluters that this scientific data shows are major contributors to climate change. If you are asserting that "green" industry has a lot to gain from scientific data indicating warming trends, you're right. But it's clearly ridiculous to believe that the "green" industry has more influence than the oil industry alone. It simply doesn't make any sense to assert that scientists would take kickbacks from renewable industry when they could take farm far more from big oil and its interests.



As if Al Gore is the "voice" of the scientific community that is in consensus about human-induced climate change.

Most of the rest of your post are just usual partisan claptraps about Al Gore and Soros.

I find it interesting that you don't apply the same "scrutiny" to scientists in other disciplines.

just going to comment on one part of your post.. the bloded section at the end.. most other scientific diciplnes are not trying to change the Whole aspect of our lives, if global warming accolytes get their way, we would be eliminating all the advances in life we currently have, .. now if you want the whole world to turn into a third world country pesthole then by all means continue on in your quest.

Originally Posted by wingrider

just going to comment on one part of your post.. the bloded section at the end.. most other scientific diciplnes are not trying to change the Whole aspect of our lives

That's complete nonsense. The car you drive is made safer by years of engineering and scientific advances. Your have a near 80 year life expectancy because of years of scientific research. You modern conveniences exist because of an endless list of scientific advances made. Your everyday life is affected, from top to bottom, because of science.

, if global warming accolytes get their way, we would be eliminating all the advances in life we currently have, .. now if you want the whole world to turn into a third world country pesthole then by all means continue on in your quest.

How so?

Originally Posted by Bluegrass

That's complete nonsense. The car you drive is made safer by years of engineering and scientific advances. Your have a near 80 year life expectancy because of years of scientific research. You modern conveniences exist because of an endless list of scientific advances made. Your everyday life is affected, from top to bottom, because of science.
How so?

because we have to stop producing CO2 to save the planet.. LOL.. its like cutting your nose off to spite your face.. no you people go ahead and



do whatever you like,,

Remember al Gore and his tour selling the idea of global warming, and rising sea levels!
His book talking of coastal flooding on a wide scale?

With the profits?


He purchased ocean front property!!!!!!

Very convincing!!!!!