Global warming IS a hoax...

H

hez7

Registered Member
Here are the Global Warming counterfacts (partial list):

* 1992 -- "Warning to Humanity" petition circulates, signed by 1,700
working CREDIBLE scientists.
http://www.worldtrans.org/whole/warning.html
http://www.deoxy.org/sciwarn.htm
http://www.bme.jhu.edu/~bdas/orissacyclone.html

* 1992 -- Oil, Coal, pollution-industries counter-attack at Rio
conference, fake Heidelberg Appeal circulates with their funding,
using their paid-science-traitors, like the documented corrupt Fred
Singer, documented corrupt Fred Seitz, documented corrupt Bruce N.
Ames.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html

* 1997-1998 -- hottest ocean temperatures ever recorded in human
history.
http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/9801/08/warm.1997

* 1998 -- hottest year in recorded human history.
http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000009.html

* 1998 -- 86% of all corals bleached, came 2 degrees from known
heat-death of species, and 10 days away from known heat-associated
digestion failure starvation deaths. No fossil record shows such
massive simultaneous incident ever in global geologic history other
than 5 mass extinction incidents.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_enviro....cfm?pageID=511

* 1999 -- strongest super-cyclone (310km/h winds) in human recorded
history hits Orissa, India. 1.9 million houses damaged or destroyed,
10,000 people swept out to drown at sea.
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach.../h"&hl=en
http://www.time.com/time/asia/magaz...ia.cyclone.html
http://www.devalt.org/newsletter/may01/of_12.htm
http://www.tribuneindia.com/1999/99nov06/ind0512b.gif

* 2002 -- Severe droughts on five continents simultaneously -- at one
moment the crops to feed one sixth the human race are threatened by
brutal killing weather.
http://www.awitness.org/news/june_2...continents.html

* 2002-2003 -- Worst drought in Australia recorded human history leads
to wildfires invading Austrialian capital city and burning down
hundreds of city blocks. At one moment not long afterwards a 250
kilometer firefront threatened to engulf the entire largest city in
that country, Sydney.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/stories/s938242.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/news/australi...122202504_1.htm
http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Challenges/fires/

* 2003 -- More people displaced by flooding than any year in recorded
human history, over twice the geographical area flooded than
second-worst flood disaster year in recorded human history.
http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Challenges/floods/

* 2003 -- 562 tornadoes sweep the USA in ten days -- largest swarm of
tornadoes ever recorded in US history, almost 50% worse than previous
historical record, and nearly three times worse than any May in US
history.
href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/gall/0,8542,950314,00.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...m&output=gplain

* 2003 -- Largest hailstone in human recorded history falls in
Nebraska, 18 inches diameter, "cannonball size" which denialists say
is impossible according to THEIR understanding of physics.
Canteloupe-sized, softball-sized, baseball-sized, golf ball-sized all
fell in 2003 hell storms.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...thailstone.html
ttp://lamar.colostate.edu/%7Ecmrozoff/weather/22-6-03.html
http://groups.google.com/groups?sel...m&output=gplain
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/iwx/2003review.shtml
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WEATHER/04/25/southern.storms/

* 2003 -- Weeks of unrelenting pounding of constant storms finally
break northeast US power grid, 50,000,000 utility customers blacked
out in US and Canada. Indiana governor, Frank O'Bannon, dies of heart
attack from stress of one declared sequential "state of emergency"
after another. Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Toronto
especially hit hard.
http://richstevens.com/blackout/p2.htm" target=
http://www.consumersenergy.com/welc...ex.asp?ASID=485
http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=3043
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/rele...20030913-2.html
http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=4937" target=
http://water.usgs.gov/pubs/fs/2003/fs-094-03/
http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=3044
http://www.fema.gov/news/event.fema?id=1004
http://www.city.toronto.on.ca/wes/t...es/oem/main.htm

* 2003 -- Worst forest firestorms in Portugal's recorded human
history, blamed on excessive heat and changed air currents denying
rainfall.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/08/05/heatwave/

* 2003 -- 20,000 forest fires in Russia, 16,000 of them before the
heat of summer, the largest number in human recorded history.
http://newsfromrussia.com/accidents...6/24/48607.html

* 2003 -- 1,400 heat-stroke deaths in Andhra Pradesh, India from
sustained heat wave and delayed monsoon -- largest mass heat-killing
in local recorded human history.
http://www.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/...14?OpenDocument

* 2003 -- 35,000 excess heat-stroke deaths across Europe, largest mass
heat-killing in European recorded history.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update29.htm


http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_R..._S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Walter_Williams_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Confronting_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Chrispeels.html
 
Very misleading, I expected to see something much more supportive of the objectivity that global warming might be a hoax. Instead, I see that most of these so called "counterfacts" seem to be supportive of the fact that global warming exists.
 
The post by hez7 is just a complete copy and paste from the last part of the page in the following link: http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html

If you waste your time reading the content of that website (www.ecosyn.us) you will notice the high degree of neurosis and paranoia reflected there. It seems all the skeptical scientists on global warming are paid liars by the TOBACCO industry. :rolleyes: :m: The subjects covered by this nutcrack are:<dir>Global Warming – Drought – Bushfires – Floods – Endangered Species – Poaching – Oil Spills – Red Tide – Coral Bleaching – Starvation – Famine – Deforestation – Air Pollution – Chemical spills – Extreme Storms – Terrorism – War – Climate Change – Invasive Species – Plagues – Bio-Sociopathy – Bioterrorism – Toxic Spills – Population</dir>Indeed, a nice example of the Green Litany. Of course, mankind is to be blamed for all of this. The man behind the website (a huge and interesting one, though!) is Leo Kuntz, and he is an ardent reader of Edward O. Wilson, so Kuntz accepts Wilson’s theory that: (quote from his web page on books Kuntz has read):<dir>"As much as one half of all species might go extinct in this 21st century, and maybe one quarter of all might be gone as fast as the year 2030, unless conservation efforts are strengthened and actions accelerated. There are books here which lay out the dimensions of the problems and challenges to be solved, and books which describe the knowledge needed to be successful in diverting the worst of the tragedy of biological holocaust.”</dir> Kuntz is quite into gardening, organic farming, ecological synergy and all that stuff, and has some crazy ideas about constructing what is known as “ziggurat”, huge massive buildings (like those awful New York brownstones) for solving population housing needs. He says:<dir>"This proposal is to begin immediately implementing the housing supply for the expected 10,000,000,000 population peak coming shortly.</dir>See this lunacy here:

http://www.ecosyn.us/ecocity/Proposal/index.html

Global warming remains being a hoax, no matter what Lion Kuntz says, or how interesting his website could be.
 
Saying global warming is one big hoax based on the sceptisicm of a few scientists is, sorry to say, rather naive. The fact remains that the large majority of respectable scientists and reports on the matter confirms global warming.

The UN Intergovernal Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in their most comprehensive report of 2001, confirms the occurence of global warming. According to their estimations, the global temperature will increase between 1.4 and 5.8 C between 1990 and 2100, considering that we continue the current trend in releasing climate gases. This panel is about as respectable and serious as you can get when it comes to climate science.
 
Global warming is more like a religion.

The old religions are obsolete. The inventors of Budhism, Islam, Christianity etc, have never foreseen the devellopment of cell phones, internet or SUV's for instance. It makes the old religions seem to be futile. So you need something new to fight for and to believe in. Global warming is the answer to that requirement. Proof is not necessary. Mind that all those rants just prove changes or apparant changes as no real comparison is made. Those changes do not prove any relation with greenhouse gasses and it's assumed affect on world temperatures.

But it's not necesairy. Deities don't need proof, just believe and consensus. That's why almost all global warming rant articles start with "the consensus about global warming is growing. The great majority of the scientist believe that ....."

This is real b********** censored

But you can lie all you want like this as long as you support global warming. Everybody knows that it must be true because you read it about ten times a day if not more often.

A regilion also needs it's devil, the main treath, whose only objective is to destroy the world. There are lot's of devils around fortunately. S. Fred Singer is, Bjorn Lomberg, Edufer ;) etc. All greedy pocket fillers. Global warmers can have their witch hunt. How dare they and try to disturb the fairy tale of the new deity who is like the emperor without clothes

But in real life little boys like Fred Singer and Edufer get killed if they say: "Mother, the emperor has no clothes on."
 
Global warming has more than sufficent scientifical proof of its existance,and is generally accepted by the climate scientist community.

The belief that global warming doesn't exist is mostly based on the loose sceptisicm of a few scientists, and is well-breeded by those who would gain on decredibilitizising the evidence of global warming (AKA the polluters).

Saying global warming is a fact is in no way comparable to religion and faith, because all major credible reports confirms it.
Believing global warming is a hoax, however, is a theory based on far looser ground. There simply are no good reasons for believing it is.

Your comment about lack of evidence when it comes to the connection between greenhouse gases and increase in temperature only indicates you haven't read many credible reports. Not that you have to. The greenhouse effect is very simple to learn about, and makes the connection between warming and increased concentration of climate gases in the atmosphere very obvious.

Want to learn a little about the greenhouse effect?

(BTW, I forgot giving the link to IPCC's report in my last post. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/)
 
Global warming has more than sufficent scientifical proof of its existance
Click to expand...

None whatsoever.
There is a lot of evidence against global warming.

is generally accepted by the climate scientist community.
Click to expand...

Nope again.
Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma

by Hans Labohm, Simon Rozendaal & Dick Thoenes

These three Dutchmen - respectively an international relations expert, a scientific journalist, and a chemical engineer (past chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society) - form part of that growing body of reasonable and qualified people who feel unease at the claims of 'scientific consensus' on climate change, and wonder at the policies flowing from those claims. If the science is flawed, plainly the policies are too. Worldwide, billions of public money will be mis-spent, unnecessary costs placed on existing industry, new industrial development hampered. Together, these three authors are well-placed to point up the weaknesses in the scientific argument that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, and are able to analyse that murky place where the needs for recognition, research grants and votes all come together. Could it really be the case that the 'global warming crisis' is really as much about careers and power as anything else?
Click to expand...

The belief that global warming doesn't exist is mostly based on the loose sceptisicm of a few scientists/
Click to expand...

brainwashed. The argument becomes convincing when heard 1000 times and it becomes apparant truth after hearing it 5000 times. It's a lie. It's based on several indepent peer reviewed scientific studies. I have posted several of them in other threads.

Want to learn a little about the greenhouse effect?
Click to expand...

Tell me about it.

BTW, I forgot giving the link to IPCC's report in my last post
Click to expand...

For the balance:

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/GlobalWarmingArticle.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/304/5675/1299
http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml
http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/images/natural_factors.gif
http://www.aai.ee/~olavi/2001JD002024u.pdf
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/papers/articles/defreitas.pdf
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov:8000/Newsroom/NasaNews/2004/2004072917348.html
 
I will try to avoid participating in flame wars, so let's stop name calling, shall we?

Andre, I don't know if you are aware, but you are proving my point. Like I said, denying global warming is the scepticism of a few induvidual scientists, and by "disproving" this by sourcing and linking the scepticism of a few induvidual scientists (as your links were) you don't really go against what I said.

For the record, the IPCC is an unbiased panel consisting of (I believe) 2500 climate scientists. There are also other major scientist communities, such as the UCS. As far as I know, there are no science communities based on the denying of global warming (the book commercial mentions a growing body, but I've actually not found this body mentioned anywhere but the book commercial).

And then we have motives, of course. As far as I can see it, there are no motives in falsely alledging global warming. There are, however, motives in falsely denying it. I'm not going to accuse anyone of anything here, but I'd still like to say that mighty oil/gas/coal companies can be quite powerful.

And yes, an increase in the concentration of climate gases in the atmosphere does increase the effect of the greenhouse effect. The stronger the greenhouse layer is, the more heat will be reflected back at earth, and the effect is strenghtned. This is basics.
 
Breton: The role of the IPCC in the global warming issue has been the subject of debate in this forum during the last three years, and the lack of scientific honesty shown by the organization has been proved beyond any doubt – so there is not a chance that invoking the IPCC and its scientists you could prove that global warming is not a hoax. The claim for “scientific authority” or an alleged “consensus” in the scientific community is already obsolete and has long be proven inexistent. Now we need proofs – hard data, not words.

Latest temperature measurements (according to NOAA’s satellites – check their website) show cooling during the year 2004:

Global trend per decade = +0.079°C,
Northern Hemisphere = +0.148°C,
Southern Hemisphere = +0.010°C.

July 2004 Global = -0.213°C,
Northern Hemisphere = -0.140°C,
Southern Hemisphere = -0.286°C.)

So where is the warming? Global warming means all over the world, isn’t it? Well, there are large enough areas of the world where temperatures are actually decreasing, showing that IPCC climate models are just useless piece of junk– see here:

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/Ghostbusting.html “Ghostbusting Temperatures”, where it is clearly shown that warming is not happening in the US – a large and representative area of the world, one country that has the best weather recording system in the world, where there is little chance that “warming scientists” can tamper with data. Take a look at the state of Missouri, or Georgia, Mississippi, etc, where the trend since 1900 is <b>cooling!</b>

http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/misuri.html
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/miss.html
http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/geo.html

See also: http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/Calen4/ghosts.html
 
And yes, an increase in the concentration of climate gases in the atmosphere does increase the effect of the greenhouse effect. The stronger the greenhouse layer is, the more heat will be reflected back at earth, and the effect is strenghtned. This is basics.
Click to expand...
Breton, I am sorry, but this statement from you shows you are a newcomer to the climate community, or that you are not proficient in English, or expressing yourself. I don’t know if your native language is English, French or Swaili (there is a chance it is not). Sometimes it happens to me (my native language is Spanish, but I make myself understood in English), so I ask you to forgive me if I sound offensive (I am not).

There are no climate gases that I know of. Perhaps it is just a <I>lapsus calami</I> from your part, and you meant “greenhouse gases”. The effect of greenhouse gases has been measured and quantified, corresponding to WATER VAPOR about 95% of responsibility for the “greenhouse effect”, then comes CO2 with about 3,5%, methane and many other gases complete the remaining 1.5%.

There is no greenhouse layer that I know of, as there is neither an ozone layer - in the sense most people think, a blanket like formation of gases. According to your profile, you are 15 years old. You were born when I had been writing articles for newspapers on ecology matters, ozone layer for more than 5 years. It means I had 20 years to analyze all the scientific facts surrounding the global warming (and other environmental issues) and this analysis made me join the “skeptic’s Army”.

I acknowledge that I can be wrong in many issues, but regarding global warming I have to see yet some scientific evidence that proves the so called warming has catastrophic consequences for mankind. As you must know, Earth has been warming steadily since the last Little Ice Age, (started 1450 AD, making a peak in 1650, and recovering since then) and is regaining its previous climate status – that is, temperatures occurred during the Medieval Climatic Optimum, also known as Medieval Warm Period (800-1350 AD), 2º C higher than now – believe it or not.

So let us make a thing clear: there was a warming going on since 1716 (or about that epoch), and this warming was a natural recovery from an abnormal cold period caused by the Double Maunder Solar Minimum (and later reinforced by Spoerer and Dalton double Minima). This is a scientific fact, nothing to discuss here, although the IPCC has argued against it supporting the flawed (and recently demonstrated false) “scientific” paper by Michael Mann et al., (Mann et al., 1998) better known as <b>The Hockey Stick</b> – a paper that stated “the 20th Century was the warmest in a millennium”, and used by the IPCC to make its claim about the “discernible human influence”.

As you surely know, this paper – IPCC’s cornerstone for its “warming hypothesis” – was audited and demonstrated flawed by S. McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, back in august 2003, and Mann was forced by nature magazine to publish a “corrigenda” (an acknowledgement that the criticism and corrections were valid) on their July 1st 2004 issue. So the scientific efficiency shown by the IPCC and all its political officials (those who really run the IPCC) has been proved inexistent.

You must know something: those 2500 scientists make their research, but their papers and results are “manipulated” by the political officials inside the IPCC to make their Summary for Policymakers. After all, the IPCC is not a scientific body but a political organization formed by governments, in charge of analysing scientific research by thousands of scientists. But their publications are simply political, not scientific. You should know that. And that's the reason why many, many honest scientists are non-believers of this global "warming hypothesis". Hypothesis and theories must be proved beyond doubt - and this has not happened, as there are too many doubts regarding the "warming".

Now it seems it is cooling, at least, that's what NOAA's satellites reveal. We are going to witness a total re-write of the climate change subject! ;)
 
Andre, I don't know if you are aware, but you are proving my point. Like I said, denying global warming is the scepticism of a few induvidual scientists, and by "disproving" this by sourcing and linking the scepticism of a few induvidual scientists (as your links were) you don't really go against what I said.
Like I said, denying global warming is the scepticism of a few induvidual scientists, and by "disproving" this by sourcing and linking the scepticism of a few induvidual scientists (as your links were) you don't really go against what I said.
Click to expand...

Breton, I don't know if you are aware, but you are proving my point.

You're reasoning seems to boil dow to:
The number of scientists is determiing what is the truth.

(How many Gallilies were needed to prove that the Earth was not in the centre of the universe? How Newtons were needed for the mass, movement and gravity laws, How many Einsteins were needed for E=mC^2.

But when global warming is at stake, there is no use to even try and understand what these scientists are saying. Since they are wrong at any rate. Two reasons, they are greedy selfish corrupt lyers. And as sure there is a deity, there is global warming. Everyboy believes in it.

Two rock solid elements of religion:
.
A Devils are evil and deity is good

B A scientific theory or hypothesis can be debunked, religion cannot. You can always believe in it no matter what. And what you is the same as: "Whatever they say, I know that what I believe is true, and I'm not going to listen ever."

So my point is proven. Global warming is the new religion.
 
Not too far from the truth, PreacherX. There are people who don't believe in freemasonry and the way they manage great corporations and enterprises - even whole governments. But that's an entirely different story.
 
there are no motives in falsely alledging global warming.
Click to expand...

Who is paying IPCC? Who will be out of a job when global warming is no longer an issue? Moverover:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html

As Aaron Wildavsky, professor of political science at Berkeley, has quipped, "global warming'' is the mother of all environmental scares. Wildavsky's view is worth quoting. "Warming (and warming alone), through its primary antidote of withdrawing carbon from production and consumption, is capable of realizing the environmentalist's dream of an egalitarian society based on rejection of economic growth in favor of a smaller population's eating lower on the food chain, consuming a lot less, and sharing a much lower level of resources much more equally.'' (...)

The remarkable centrality of carbon dioxide means that dealing with the threat of warming fits in with a great variety of preexisting agendas--some legitimate, some less so: energy efficiency, reduced dependence on Middle Eastern oil, dissatisfaction with industrial society (neopastoralism), international competition, governmental desires for enhanced revenues (carbon taxes), and bureaucratic desires for enhanced power.

Many of those individuals see in the global change issue an area in which to continue applying their skills. Many scientists also feel that national security concerns formed the foundation for the U.S. government's generous support of science. As the urgency of national security, traditionally defined, diminishes, there is a common feeling that a substitute foundation must be established. "Saving the planet'' has the right sort of sound to it. Fundraising has become central to environmental advocates' activities, and the message underlying some of their fundraising seems to be "pay us or you'll fry.''

Clearly, "global warming'' is a tempting issue for many very important groups to exploit. Equally clearly, though far less frequently discussed, are the profound dangers in exploiting that issue.
Click to expand...

There are, however, motives in falsely denying it. I'm not going to accuse anyone of anything here, but I'd still like to say that mighty oil/gas/coal companies can be quite powerful.
Click to expand...

Using the fallacy of ad hominem is standard practice for killing devils. You don't need to defend a theory as in science. You merely use the witch hunt to purify the religion again.
 
hez7 post - Why don't you tell us what you think instead of inviting us to wade through all that.

Personally I don't believe global warming is a hoax but neither do I believe that it's entirely man made or that cars are the cause.
 
Corretc the title is very misleading i meant "GW a hoax?" anyway it got you looking.

alty said:
hez7 post - Why don't you tell us what you think instead of inviting us to wade through all that.
Click to expand...

Basically because my UNSUPPORTED opinion would have as much merit as yours.
This is a scientific question, and must be supported by enough credible authorities for the world to take seriously.

Personally I don't believe global warming is a hoax but neither do I believe that it's entirely man made or that cars are the cause
Click to expand...

That's cool Alty, but show me some QUANTIFICATION and whilst you're at it, provide the SUPERIOR hypothesis that explains and predicts better than GHG theory..?

And who said it was "entirely" man-made or "only" cars that where the cause?...not me...and anyway, the man-made component is the only aspect we can deal with, therefore the question is how significant is the man-made component, and the answer is in the last few decades..SIGNIFICANT...see IPCC TAR 2001 and ongoing heat and weather records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top