Global Warming Debate: A smoke Screen for the modern man???

[Argeroth]

Greetings,
Tonight I listened to a radio broadcast on coasttocoastam.com speaking with Lawrence Joseph. In the interview he mentions that some of the scientists he has spoken to in Russia acredit up to 30% of the Global warming to the Sun's activity increasing.
As a teenager, I became frustrated at the worlds problems(I'm 27 now). How could we be behaving so stupidly? Why are we destroying our own planets eco-system?? As time went by, my through process changed... what if this 'stupidity' is engineered. It seems very fitting that in a time reaching so close to the magic number 2012, that our attention is being pushed off onto Global warming and how we need to focus on cutting down our emissions. I've heard that this comet body the '12th planet' has actually been in our solar system for many years now??? I've heard many stories about red 'ferrite dust', shady bodies being picked up close to the sun with the naked eye, the earth wobbling?? These stories don't ever seem to make it to the news.
One thing I have begun to admire about humanity, is despite all of the negativity that enslaves us, we still have such a capacity to grow and such a tendancy to evovle. It is those who are in charge that seem to manipulate the sitiuation and prevent us from growing. I hear that Nikola Tesla, on the day that he died, the secret service comfiscated all of his material and research and made it 'top secret', to think if all of his research had been avaiable for the novice, to study and comprehend.
These links:
http:(2slh)www(dot)metacaf(dot).com/watch/67009/water_powered_car/
http:(2slsh)video.google(dot)com/videoplay?docid=-3333992194168790800
http:(2slsh)video.google(dot)com/videoplay?docid=-1400360016821042640
http:(2slsh)video.google(dot)com/videoplay?docid=5735303787270758729
Talk about a technology that through magnetic force, high frequency and voltage can seperate H20 into HH0 or plain hydrogen gas, quite efficiently and readily, to the point where the reaction can produce enough power to sustain itself and create enough gas to power an engine. The application of that alone would virtually cause the Oil Giants to disappear over night! Even if this technology is a hoax, I am sure there are things labeled 'top secret' that would render the human population independant of their opressors....
I feel like the worlds populace is being distracted away to what really is going on. I also feel that this Global Warming debate is simply a smoke screen to prevent us from preparing for an exciting journy that very few of us can ever perceive. I am not saying that it is not an issue. But when the powers at be give u 2 choices.... Gas or Diesel??? A your body and mind are poluted to know end, and your will is numbed down by flouride and various other excitotoxins... what is one to do??
Thanks for listening!

 

[radish]

Hi Argeroth - I agree that global warming is a smoke screen.

I just listened to an interview with James Hansen, the NASA scientist who was ignored and censored for speaking out about global warming, then resigned and is now become more accessible to the news media. This is the man who the government was supposedly afraid of. The interview was with Mirea Gillardin on TUC radio, it took place right after a lecture he gave in California.

Hansen cautioned that CO2 levels are higher today than at a time millions of years ago when the earth was veritably sloshing with hot water (don't systems LOSE energy over time instead of gaining it?). He cautioned that Greenland is getting "smaller" and we could lose west Antarctica and Greenland." Not a word about the East Antarctican ice sheet or the Greenland ice sheet, which may be getting thicker, even as Greenland itself, becomes "smaller."

When asked about ocean currents, Hansen assured that they can see everything that is going on very well with their elaborate computer models of the ocean currents, but he did not mention the Gulf Stream once.

When asked about ice cores Hansen actually said they prove "global heating happens much faster than global cooling." I don't think those are the conclusions made by French and Japanese scientists who have examined ice cores. It's too bad she didn't ask him about the frozen slush of pleistocene animals and plants possibly ringing the upper northern hemisphere. Overall it felt like he consistently evaded any reference that could call the long term likelihood of global warming into question.

Hansen also does not have the articulation of someone who has spent the past few years speaking out in a federal agency, testifying to Congress, etc. I am beginning to seriously doubt his veracity. More than that, I feel he has been planted to play this role of "leaking" global warming to focus attention on it.

 

[Voyageur]

CBC yesterday rolled out an article called 'Droughts show global warming is 'scientific fact' featuring non other than Dr. James Hansen the climate anthropogenic change authoritarian.

NASA researcher's study 'reframes the question,' UVic professor says
The Associated Press
Posted: Aug 4, 2012 10:49 PM ET
Last Updated: Aug 5, 2012 10:05 AM ET

_http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html

Probably, based on the heat waves in the US and Canada of late, this article is hitting home, fetching > 1400 comments. Couple of observations in the article and by public comment's were noted. The first is that articles like this have pigeonholed the opposition with the ponerizing word 'Skeptic" (like 'conspiracy theorist'). Very little is ever quoted except to say "climate change skeptics say...".

Hansen is discussed in SotT often in the past and he is really quite a scary dude, IMO. The other aspect to the article were the comment's as said and they seemed to be running neck and neck, leaning slightly to the pro Hansen gibberish. Of note on many of these; there were the subjective science types who would not entertain anything other than their worldview, were the out and out climate (build more nuke-reactor) fanatical zealots types - very scary. Worse, in general discussions on the street, getting a sense that people have been so duped as new climate evangelic troops, that external considering often overrides any healthy discussion. Having seen a few pivotal ponerising things in society of late, think the climate stance takes the cake; there is just no reasoning with them.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

The application of that alone would virtually cause the Oil Giants to disappear over night!

There is no way this is going to happen no matter what we do. Do you have an idea of how much power, influence and control big corporations have? They are never going to be defeated unless the entire world around them collapse (which is about to happen).

I feel like the worlds populace is being distracted away to what really is going on. I also feel that this Global Warming debate is simply a smoke screen to prevent us from preparing for an exciting journy that very few of us can ever perceive. I am not saying that it is not an issue. But when the powers at be give u 2 choices.... Gas or Diesel??? A your body and mind are poluted to know end, and your will is numbed down by flouride and various other excitotoxins... what is one to do??
Thanks for listening!

Pollution is a great issue but not because of alleged "global warming". It's a ealth issue plain and simple. When you alter one's body chemistry, you can render this person a lot more vulnerable to attacks. Could be a diesease and/or emotional problem(s).

The only thing you can do, osit, would be to check on your diet. There is plenty information here about it. There are ways to restore (at least partly depending on state) the chemical balance and ways to get rid of dangerous toxins like mercury and other heavy metals.

Pollution isn't only of atmospheric nature. It is also found in tap water and in virtually every industrial-grade food items (GMO's, hormones, antibiotics, pesticides etc). Those are important things to check.

Peace.

 

[Deleted member 8431]

To add to the subject, yes, anthopogenic global warming (AGW) is a myth. Scientists have overestimated the effects of carbon dioxide (CO2) on radiative balance. Or, should I say, they were told to put it this way.

Truth is that the intense heat and drough experienced in the USA and Canada for instance is nothing compared to what's coming. That's what they want to hide.

They want to hide the very fact that we are about to go through a massive global extinction.

Things are getting ugly already if you watch around the world closely. And you should note that 'authorities' or 'officials' are getting desperate in trying to hide it. Should be interesting to see how long they'll be able to 'hold their grounds'.

 

[Mal7]

This is something I just wrote for my Facebook wall, after thinking about how AGW spokespeople tend to appeal to the great number of climate change scientists who have signed up to say they agree that AGW is occurring.

Science does not progress by consensus! (I'm looking at you, AGW spokespeople.)

The New Zealand flora has many similiarities to that of Chile, including for example beech tree forests of the genus Nothofagus. Scientists now think the distribution of the Nothofagus genus in New Zealand and Chile is the result of those two land masses being connected together in Gondwana 85 million years ago.

Go back to the 19th century though, and you would have found a consensus among scientists that the above explanation made little sense. Why? Because the theory of continental drift wasn’t proposed until the early 20th century, and didn’t gain widespread traction until as late as the 1960s, when another theory, plate tectonics, became widely accepted among scientists as the mechanism for how continental drift could occur.

At any point in history there may be a large degree of consensus among scientists. In his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn makes a case that the most significant advances in science are made not so much because of the existence of such a consensus, but rather in spite of it, in a process which he describes as a "paradigm shift". At first a maverick scientist has an alternative theory, which is not widely accepted, but if gradually that new theory is seen to have more explanatory power, and to be able to explain things that were anomalous and inadequately explained by the older theory, then over time that new theory may become the new current best explanation.

However this process of progressing from one paradigm to another may be slowed down or halted if all the research funding and research opportunities go towards scientists working on the old paradigm, while the maverick scientists are cast out into the wilderness.

 

[Buddy]

This is something I just wrote for my Facebook wall, after thinking about how AGW spokespeople tend to appeal to the great number of climate change scientists who have signed up to say they agree that AGW is occurring.
[...]

I like it. Here's my take:

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Hoax. AGW 'consensus' science is a suicide pact among its members. Al Gore is already a laughing stock as is McCain. It wouldn't surprise me that most environmental 'scientists' are all laughing stocks in widening circles of people all over the globe.

It seems the biggest issue with many who disagree with AGW is that visible theme of a socialist-Utopian dream of control and stability that runs like a thread through every area the "masters" think they can dominate.

Not going to happen.

Weather systems are like economic systems, in that they perpetually evolve, perpetually change, and that evolutionary change is normal. We're already seeing the disastrous results of central planning and central control over economies. Any Keynesian-Marxist inspired socialist notion of 'natural-stability,' whether its one-size-fits-all social-stability, economic stability, weather stability or whatever, is doomed from the get-go because its a natural oxymoron.

Nature is evolutionary change. Change is quantum and uncertain. In order to survive we have to be able to adapt to changes. In some contexts, to adapt we must compete. Ultimately, competition is how nature assesses natural selection, whether what is being selected for is survivable DNA, genes, economic systems, methods of disseminating truth or whatever.

From that interesting perspective, AGW doesn't really sound evil and bad; rather, it is in the longer term, good. Because attempts to abort or alter natural rhythms in weather, society, and financial systems induces an eventual self-extinction of those who do so. Whether or not all AGW advocates are smokescreening or they really believe in their doctrine, they are all marked for self-extinction until they change their ways.

Advice to lurkers: Dump consensus science and increase your chances of survival.


Climate change 'sceptic' Ian Plimer argues CO2 is not causing global warming:
_http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6553592/Climate-change-sceptic-Ian-Plimer-argues-CO2-is-not-causing-global-warming.html


Two examples of Michael T. Eckhart showing Global Warmists' true colors:
_http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2007/jul/27/inside-the-beltway-42894-6/


And what about those 31,000 scientists who had rejected the 'global warming' agenda?
_http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/64734/

 

[Gmork]

And what about those 31,000 scientists who had rejected the 'global warming' agenda?
_http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/64734/

They are not a climatology scientist (well about 40 of them is). So how much is their vote worth ?

 

[Deleted member 8431]

And what about those 31,000 scientists who had rejected the 'global warming' agenda?
_http://www.wnd.com/2008/05/64734/

They are not a climatology scientist (well about 40 of them is). So how much is their vote worth ?

I don't think you specifically need to be a climatologist to disagree with the mainstream AGW myth. Anyone actually who can watch for the signs of the times and connect dots can see how nonsensical it is. Of course, having a scientific background can help but only if you are open, critical and objective that is (as all scientists should be anyway).

With the evident corruption of science and academia, I'd say that most probably the vast majority (if not all) climatologists aren't really learning how climate works fundamentally. For them it's all about radiation balance, forcing and they completely avoid cosmic influences and electrical phenomena (not to mention past cyclical events/Earth changes etc).

My thoughts.

 

[Joe]

The problem with the whole 'global warming' debate is that there are those who are "for" it and those who are "against" it. Most of those "for" it are being duped by Al Gore et al, although there is some truth in what he says. Most of those who are against it, are even more deluded because they simply reject the idea on the basis that it's a scam and there is NOTHING at all to see here. The points that are lost in this phony debate are:

a) the planet has been warming, but it has little to do with human activity of the CO2 variety, and the warming has reduced significantly and given way to chaotic weather patterns and notably harsh winters

b) historically, ice ages are preceded by a warming period

c) there are several factors that are coincident with an increase in events that can plausibly be blamed on global warming, yet these factors are not taken into consideration, because they would tend to discount the idea that humans are causing the warming and that warming is the only problem. Those factors include, cometary activity, meteorite activity, volcanic and earthquake activity, and other anomalous activity (sinkholes, mass animal deaths, strange sounds in the sky etc.)

 

[SeekinTruth]

Great summary, Perceval. Plus the other planets in the solar system have had similar changes occur, so it can't be "human caused."

 

[Deleted member 8431]

The problem with the whole 'global warming' debate is that there are those who are "for" it and those who are "against" it. Most of those "for" it are being duped by Al Gore et al, although there is some truth in what he says. Most of those who are against it, are even more deluded because they simply reject the idea on the basis that it's a scam and there is NOTHING at all to see here. The points that are lost in this phony debate are:

I like that part the most. This is very true.

It's one thing to deny global warming but another to deny the current change on the Earth (and elsewhere).

Great short summary as well.

 

[GregP507]

In the last 40 years I've seen a complete 180 in the consensus about climate change. At that time, the only message I heard about climate change was that we were due for another ice age. I was there, but some will contend that such a message never existed. Therein lies the real problem in my opinion. Real science has been muzzled, silenced, sliced and diced and served up on the platter of whichever political agenda has found it the most desirable. A half-truth can be as bad as a lie, and unfortunately we never seem to get the whole truth anymore.

We humans love a football game, and to root for our own side, but unfortunately the climate debate has shaped up that way. We tend to support anything our "own side" says, and we disparage anything the "other side" says. This unfortunate situation only takes us farther away from the truth, and not any closer to it. Once science is corrupted, it's no longer science. Such is a recipe for gridlock, and gridlock is the thing we can least afford in these perilous times for our planet.