Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

[Extrafire]

The arguments against human generated climate change are as much a fabrication as the arguments against a tobacco cancer link for decades last century, and it's based on pure greed. Some of the same 'scientists'- like Fred Singer- have been hired by Exxon Mobile to just name one company to cloud the issue as much as possible. There is no real scientific debate on the reality of human generated climate change, that's an illusion created by the fossil fuel industry.

The only real debate among genuine scientists is how significant the global climate change will be.

Nonsense. It's true that the oil companies funded some skeptics a bit at the beginning, but the vast majority of them never got a dime, never will. The oil companies are in business to make money, and they've since realized that there's more money in "fighting climate change" than in selling oil, so they're all pretty much on board and lining up at the government trough. The real money is in climate change, it's the biggest industry in the world now, much bigger than oil, and they want in on it. Besides, they know you aren't going to give up your car, you'll just pay more, and the way it's set up, "fighting climate change" is mostly about wealth transfer, so even if we buy less oil, other parts of the world will buy more.

Drink that koolaid!

 

[Tonington]

Both are exponential curves, one being the inverse of the other.:roll:

No, one is an exponential function, the other is logarithmic. The inverse of an exponential is a logarithm, but the functions' outcomes are not at all similar. One moves away from a limit, the other moves towards a limit, as the value of the independent variable increases.

I'm now going to go back through this back and forth, maybe you'll understand at the end.

You seem a bit confused. It isn't the skeptics that are expecting warming, it's the alarmists who are pushing the panic button over miniscule warming that contradicts the hypothesis that human emissions are responsible for dangerous global warming.

Yes, logarithmically as opposed to liniarly. Very similar to exponentially. They don't ignore that at all. Rather it's the alarmists who do.

As we'll see in the next quote, you said that the skeptics pointed out that the warming should be occurring exponentially. That is plainly wrong.

The original AGW hypothesis was that dangerous (and unprecidented) global warming was caused by human emissions since the beginning of the industrial revolution. Sceptics pointed out that the warming should then be minimal at the end of the little ice age and grow slowly, but exponentially as emissions increased, but such was not the case.

What you said there is clearly that skeptics think warming should progress exponentially.

Do you get it yet? If the temperature response in the atmosphere of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is a logarithmic relationship, then why would sceptics say that the warming should have grown exponentially as emissions increased?

That is wrong. Emissions are growing exponentially, but since the response is logarithmic, that means that the expected increase in temperature (or more precisely the radiative forcing) should be linear, and it is.

No original hypothesis ever said that given this fact that the temperature should monotonically increase.

Can you even point to an original AGW hypothesis?

Sceptics are wrong about this, and anyone who was listening to what they said would have benefited from being skeptical themselves of the so-called skeptics. Their claim about what should have happened is not based on physics, or any other study of reality.

 

[Walter]

Earth day is great for the watermelon crowd. Peter Foster: Earth Day?s kick in the ash - Full Comment

 

[darkbeaver]

OP "Global warming greatest scam in history".

No it isn't the greatest scam in history but it's hard wired to the greatest scam in history.
The included link is a piece of maintenance of the physical fundementals of the scam which have required constant adjustment by way of obfuscation for a long time.Magnetic Portals Connect Earth to the Sun - NASA Science

The dedication and accomplishments of these scamers is a terrible and awesome thing to consider. Legions of Al Cores and Tony Blairs, snake oilers, intimates of lizards, off world intrigue, romance, adventure. Way better than Avatar.

 

[darkbeaver]

Hitched to a Star

Recently, a research team from UCLA announced the discovery of a "previously unknown" mechanism for transmitting energy from the Sun into Earth's magnetosphere. Charged particles called the solar wind erupt from the Sun in all directions, but how the electric charge is transferred to the magnetosphere is a mystery.

"Larry Lyons, UCLA professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences and a co-author of the research, which is in press in two companion papers in the Journal of Geophysical Research."

Don't be afraid to comment, there is no need to hide under your bed avoiding your obvious handicap to balanced discussion of our climate. If you read this article and the previous one in the above post you will note the absence of the words charge, polarity, electricity, current or circuit, voltage, watts etc; it is impossible to discuss, consider, describe or understand magnetism without them.
This is todays sorry state of scientific academia the good professor knows less than a pot smoking part time chicken farmer about the climate mechanisms of the planet,(be afraid, be very afraid) I know I am. If there's a lesson here it is surely not to allow university to ruin your education.
If you read the articles the professor has discovered and charted the fact that increased magnetic flux results in increased convection. That means that water is lifted and held aloft by electromagnetic charge.

 

[Tonington]

lol, nobody needs to hide under a bed...

Don't let university ruin your education, but I think we should trust this university professor because he has published some science which I think supports my view of reality. Fits my biases, as it were.

That's pretty much what your posts boil down to DB. Even though there is no mention of climate at all in the news release, even though there is no mention at all from you or the thunderdolts how that translates into surface warming, you still think this is a proof....

As to the convection, the solar wind is driving convection in the magnetosphere and ionosphere. How do you get from there to troposphere (where we measure warming,) without warming the stratosphere, a layer of the atmosphere which is cooling?

Inconvenient for a sun/electric hypothesis of global warming.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

 

[darkbeaver]

What is wind Tonington?

 

[Tonington]

If you can't answer, just say so. If your contention is that wind is transporting heat from the ionosphere into the troposphere, then it would also have to warm the stratosphere, which is not warming.

There's no magic wind, or wormhole which can move heat from one area to another without that heat impacting the area in between, unless the area in-between is at the same temperature as one of those areas, which it is not.

 

[darkbeaver]

If you can't answer, just say so. If your contention is that wind is transporting heat from the ionosphere into the troposphere, then it would also have to warm the stratosphere, which is not warming.

There's no magic wind, or wormhole which can move heat from one area to another without that heat impacting the area in between, unless the area in-between is at the same temperature as one of those areas, which it is not.

Billions of people transfer heat to a coffee percolators everyday without boiling off their power cords. The troposphere is heated primarily by the surface heat of the planet. You can see the molten results of heat sink ruptures, that heat did not travel down into the crust of the earth from the sun, it traveled up from the powered core which is directly connected to the sun through the earths poles.

Here's one of the millions of earthbound wormholes, bored by the passage of electrical current.

Thurston Lava Tube on Big Island Hawaii - Pictures & Info

 

[Tonington]

Billions of people transfer heat to a coffee percolators everyday without boiling off their power cords.

So? That's a stupid analogy. Billions of people will burn their hands if they place their hands next to a bonfire and leave it there. That's how radiation works.

 

[ironsides]

Rep. Israel: ‘Climate Change Is a National Security Issue’
Friday, April 23, 2010
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) – Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) said that climate change, "pure" oceans and the reduction of carbon emissions are national security issues because they affect our military and the enemies we "fight" around the globe.

“Our intelligence analysts and our military folks tell us that environment factors, exactly -- environmental factors determine who we’re going to be fighting, where we’re going to fighting them, whether we’re going to be fighting them,” said Israel. “And so for me, for my colleagues, climate change is a national security issue.”


Israel, who serves on the Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, which funds the Department of Energy and Army Corps of Engineers, made his remarks at a Capitol Hill screening of “Acid Test,” a documentary about ocean acidification. Actress Sigourney Weaver narrates the documentary and she also spoke at the event, which was sponsored by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a liberal environmental group, on April 22, Earth Day.

“Clean air and water is a national security issue,” said Israel. “Reducing carbon is a national security issue. Pure oceans is a national security issue. And so the NRDC, the defense part of NRDC is about defense. And the best way to secure defense is to make sure you’re living on a planet that is stable and secure and that provides what people need everyday in their lives.”

According to its Web site, the NRDC’s mission is to “safeguard the Earth: its people, its plants and animals and the natural systems on which all life depends
CNSNews.com - Rep. Israel: ?Climate Change Is a National Security Issue?


Now is it or not?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Nonsense. It's true that the oil companies funded some skeptics a bit at the beginning, but the vast majority of them never got a dime, never will. The oil companies are in business to make money, and they've since realized that there's more money in "fighting climate change" than in selling oil, so they're all pretty much on board and lining up at the government trough. The real money is in climate change, it's the biggest industry in the world now, much bigger than oil, and they want in on it. Besides, they know you aren't going to give up your car, you'll just pay more, and the way it's set up, "fighting climate change" is mostly about wealth transfer, so even if we buy less oil, other parts of the world will buy more.

Drink that koolaid!

BS

Exxon(before the Mobil) put millions into getting the whole climate change denial movement going almost two decades ago, hiring hacks like Fred(secondhand smoke doesn't kill) Singer to set up some of the same "institutes" that are behind the garbage attacking the genuine research now.

And green technology is in it's infancy, anyone who claims it comes anywhere close to rivaling the fossil fuel sector is either permanently stoned, deranged or part of the fossil fuel industry.

Fighting climate change is ultimately about monopoly busting unless you can find some way to corner the market on sunlight, good luck with that one genius.

 

[Slim Chance]

BS

Exxon(before the Mobil) put millions into getting the whole climate change denial movement going almost two decades ago, hiring hacks like Fred(secondhand smoke doesn't kill) Singer to set up some of the same "institutes" that are behind the garbage attacking the genuine research now.

... And the likes of Gore, Suzuki, WWF, Greenpeace, the UN, the IPCC etc have likely put in tens if not hundreds of millions into developing a wealth transfer agenda based on fraud, misrepresentation, a complete refusal for public debate and questionable science.

Can you guess which aforementioned individual has a carbon trading company? Which group is pushing to levy a save-the-world-tax?

And green technology is in it's infancy, anyone who claims it comes anywhere close to rivaling the fossil fuel sector is either permanently stoned, deranged or part of the fossil fuel industry.

That's the problem, isn't it? There are no viable options that will replace fossil fuels, so until that fateful day comes, there are no real alternatives.

Fighting climate change is ultimately about monopoly busting unless you can find some way to corner the market on sunlight, good luck with that one genius.

A monopoly? Whose, exactly - the Earth's?.

You must be deeply involved with Greenpeace to really believe that.

 

[darkbeaver]

Who determines what is a viable option? Tesla spoke of free power, he died in a hotel room marginalized and alone. Control of the supply and distribution of oil is and always has been far more important than discovery and production. Peak oil is rubbish, the whole biotic model of hydrocarbons is rubbish.
Free or cheap abundant energy terrifies capital like nothing else. Power efficiency is an abomination to them, anything that threatens their economic strangle hold is the target of their disinformation.

 

[Slim Chance]

You've been watching too many movies...

 

[AnnaG]

You've been watching too many movies...

Conspiracy ones. I agree. lol
I think it stems from the pot-induced paranoias and phobias.

 

[darkbeaver]

Thankyou for the free diagnosis. I'll keep all the phsyciatric advice on file. If you'd be so kind as to address the climate related part of the post now that you've alerted me to possible mental problems.

 

[darkbeaver]

duplication

 

[AnnaG]

Thankyou for the free diagnosis. I'll keep all the phsyciatric advice on file. If you'd be so kind as to address the climate related part of the post now that you've alerted me to possible mental problems.

Like your post #2413?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

... And the likes of Gore, Suzuki, WWF, Greenpeace, the UN, the IPCC etc have likely put in tens if not hundreds of millions into developing a wealth transfer agenda based on fraud, misrepresentation, a complete refusal for public debate and questionable science.

My god you're right, where do I sign up for the "oil is life" indoctrination you've so obviously incorporated into basic your personality?

Can you guess which aforementioned individual has a carbon trading company? Which group is pushing to levy a save-the-world-tax?

Once again I'm astounded, imagine Gore actually putting his beliefs into action, so what if the science is overwhelmingly behind him not to mention the obvious evidence from everyday life that billions around the world have been experiencing in the last couple of decades.

That's the problem, isn't it? There are no viable options that will replace fossil fuels, so until that fateful day comes, there are no real alternatives.

Do me a favour, go outside tomorrow and look up...that big thing in the sky, it's called the sun. It puts out more energy in a second than we could use in the foreseeable future. Solar cell technology has been around for decades and is getting better and cheaper all the time, same with storage. Mass heating and natural lighting have been around for millennia, plasma drilling technology is opening up geothermal power potential, biomass and tidal power are also developing as well as wind.

There's a plethora of alternatives if we could just get past the political blockage of the fossil fuel lobby.

there's also conservation, we don't need as much energy if we don't use as much.

You're problem is you've simply chosen to shut your eyes to the alternatives.

A monopoly? Whose, exactly - the Earth's?.

I was refering to a limited ownership of what is really a common resource, where is my share of billions being made by the oil industry? Remember that record profit Exxon Mobil had in the second quarter of 2008 where it made $1,500 a SECOND, if I have to live with the consequences of too much CO2 in the atmosphere then I want my share of the good times, send me the damn check.

You must be deeply involved with Greenpeace to really believe that.

Never been a member, but I did grow up in the birthplace of Greenpeace BC, I guess for some that's indictment enough.

You know I'm just more inclined to listen to people who ac

I'm more inclined to listen to people who know what they're talking about.